1986-06-12

Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, eight months ago in Nassau, Canada and 48 other Members of the Commonwealth of nations established a group of seven Eminent Persons to seek ways of dismantling apartheid and erecting the structure of democracy in South Africa. That was done in the belief that the multiracial Commonwealth, of which South Africa had once been a member, had a better chance than any other institution to encourage change without violence. Twenty-three days ago today, while the Eminent Persons Group was still in Capetown, the Government of South Africa launched bombs and raids on Zambia, Zimbabwe and Botswana. This morning, in London, the Eminent Persons Group issued its report, significantly, a unanimous report.
It concludes that at present there is no genuine intention on the part of the South African Government to dismantle apartheid. It reports that political freedom, far from being established, is being more rigorously curtailed, and the cycle of violence and counter-violence grows. It finds that the concrete progress looked for in the Nassau Accord has simply not materialized.
For anyone who might still doubt the attitude of the South African Government, its intransigence was demonstrated again last night by the imposition of a state-wide state of emergency.

The Prime Minister of Canada and six other Commonwealth leaders will meet in London August 3rd to 5th to consider what further action the Commonwealth can take together to increase pressure against apartheid. Already one thing is clear.
By its actions, its words, its raids against its neighbours, the South African Government has closed one more door on dialogue. The temptation is to conclude that they will never respond to our entreaties, never change by choice. That is not the view of the Eminent Persons-not yet. But it is their view that steady pressure is essential to any prospect of peaceful change. I quote their report:

We point to the fact that the Government of South Africa had itself used economic measures against its neighbours and that such measures are patently instruments of its own national policy. We are convinced that the South African Government is concerned about the adoption of effective economic measures against it. If it comes to the conclusion that it would always remain protected from such measures, the process of change in South Africa is unlikely to increase in momentum and the descent into violence would be accelerated. In these circumstances, the Eminent Persons conclude that the cost in lives may have to be counted in millions.
Canada has already taken several economic and other measures against apartheid. After the August meeting, we are prepared to take more, in concert with the Commonwealth if possible, on our own if necessary. We believe the Commonwealth will move forward united against apartheid. To encourage that result, to maintain that pressure, I am announcing today four more Canadian measures against apartheid. Two were listed in the Commonwealth Accord of Nassau.
We are ending Canadian Government procurement of South African products. I have today communicated with the provinces urging them to consider parallel action in their own jurisdiction. We will ban the promotion in Canada of tourism to South Africa. We are allocating $2 million more to our program for the education and training of blacks in South Africa. Finally, I have directed my officials today to inform the South African Government that Canada will no longer accept the non-resident accreditation of the four South African attaches to Canada for Science, Mining, Labour and Agriculture. They will no longer be authorized to carry on their official functions in this country.

Those are measured steps-economic, diplomatic, humanitarian-to maintain steady pressure against apartheid. In addition, the Canadian Embassy in Sought Africa will be closed on Monday, June 16th, to commemorate the Tenth Anniversary of the tragedy of Soweto. Members of the Embassy will be attending the services that will be taking place that day, to mark the aspirations of the majority of South Africans for a society based on freedom and equalithy, and to share their hope for peace.
The Prime Minister has asked Mr. Bernard Wood, Director of the North-South Institute, to visit a number of Commonwealth partners in preparation for the August meeting. Mr. Wood will consult with President Kenneth Kaunda, the Chairman of the Front Line States, and other Commonwealth leaders.

June 12, 1986
Statements by Ministers

The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spoke last night with Prime Minister Hawke of Australia, and will be in touch with Prime Minister Gandhi of India, to maintain the partnership which proved so effective in Nassau. He will be meeting Prime Minister Thatcher during her visit to Canada in July.
Of course, we are also consulting countries outside the Commonwealth. Canada's representative on the Commonwealth Committee on South Africa, our High Commissioner to London, Roy McMurtry, will represent Canada at the United Nations World Conference on Sanctions in Paris next week.
What we are doing is designed to maintain the effectiveness of a Commonwealth we value, and to keep Canada in the forefront of those who oppose apartheid. These measures do not rule out further steps in the near future. On the contrary, they portend more severe measures, if the South African Government intends to refuse to enter a dialogue except on its own narrow terms.
In closing, on behalf of all Canadians, I want to pay tribute to the dedication, the wisdom and the generosity of Archbishop Ted Scott. He has performed a great service, as have his colleagues in the Eminent Persons Group. We are grateful to him, and to all of them. Canada will act in the generous and determined spirit which inspired their work.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, in the unavoidable absence of the Hon. Member for Saint-Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston), I want to reply to the Minister's statement on behalf of the Official Opposition.
While we discuss this grave matter in the Canadian Parliament the tragedy grows more serious in South Africa- lives are lost, innocent people are imprisoned, the few rights that some had are suspended and homes and property are destroyed. Reasonable and moderate people all over the world are outraged and saddened.
Over the past few years Canada and other democratic countries have taken certain steps to apply pressure on South Africa to end its racist and odious apartheid system. Unfortunately, no real change of mind has taken place in that country. There has been only minor tinkering with the system. According to the report of Eminent Persons that we saw this morning, it appears that South Africa, contrary to world opinion, has decided either to rough it out or to shoot it out.
When Bishop Tutu was here he pleaded for Canadians, and others, to get tougher with the regime in South Africa. Some people in Canada and in other countries are afraid that additional mandatory sanctions will only hurt those whom we are trying to help. But many in South Africa are already risking their lives. Each day they go to the battlements for justice. In any case many of them have little to lose. They are
already second class citizens in their own land. More must be done.
Our goal must be to force the hand of the South African Government to change its policy, to negotiate with the majority in the country. Our goal must be to support those in South Africa who are working for change, and to mobilize public opinion in that country. If possible, these actions must attempt to force the end of apartheid with a minimum of violence and a minimum of impact on those to be helped. We know that may not be possible.
Furthermore, our actions, as much as we can, must be directed at the ruling elite in that country. I fully agree with the Minister that joint action is essential. Canada alone cannot bring down apartheid; but Canada need not wait. Others have not waited. Strong action by Canada will encourage others. I believe the key to effective action to bring about meaningful and lasting change in South Africa lies with the Governments of the United Kingdom, the United States and West Germany, the larger countries which do trade with and invest in South Africa.
I am pleased that the Minister has said that the Government envoy will be immediately approaching others in the Commonwealth, and others outside the Commonwealth, to get them onside in terms of effective action as soon as possible, even before the meeting in August.
What the Government has proposed today is good. It is another step in the right direction. However, I feel it will not be enough, if we take seriously what has been said to us by the Eminent Persons Group. These measures which the Government has announced have value in that they will encourage others; they show that Canada is willing to act immediately. However, as the Minister has said and as we have said, Canada must be prepared to do more, and to do more quickly. We must totally render ineffective and, if possible, topple the ruling political, economic and social elite in South Africa, and all those who support the apartheid system.
In approaching our allies in other democratic countries who have the same concerns as we, we must consider severing diplomatic relations. We must consider programs in which there will be no new investment in South Africa and a program of disinvestment with respect to those investments we already have. We now have a voluntary request that the krugerrand not be sold in Canada. I suggest to the Minister that we have to go further and make some of these voluntary actions mandatory. We should, with all allies, attempt to stop all landings by South African airlines in our countries. This is something that would strike at the ruling elite. The great majority of those in South Africa who are flying about the world are not the black majority. With our allies we must press for full arms and energy embargoes.
We in the Opposition encourage the Government to puruse the toughest possible measures, and we will support the Minister in that pursuit. I know the Minister will agree that
June 12, 1986

there can be no compromise with respect to any policy of racist supremacy and apartheid.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, we in this Party welcome today's statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). He will remember that 1 welcomed his statement last September, following the August meeting of the Commonwealth Prime Ministers, and welcomed Canada's limited, voluntary measures against the South African regime at that time. At the same time we called for new Canadian initiatives and leadership to bring apartheid to an end. I urged the Government to match the initiatives of the people of Canada, some of the Provinces and the labour movement. I called for Canada to take the lead in the international community by implementing staged economic sanctions.
We welcome the fact that this Government, unlike Governments before it, is prepared to take some strong initiatives. However, given the escalating violence and tension in South Africa, given the report of the Eminent Persons Groups which we saw this morning, given South Africa's rejection of that report and its declaration last night of a brutal state of emergency, we feel that the Canadian Government is not moving with the sense of urgency that the situation demands.
Ending Canadian Government procurement of South African products is really not very much. The Government buys very little from South Africa and should, in fact, have ended any purchase from that country long ago. The Government should follow the lead of Denmark, for example, which this week imposed a trade embargo on South Africa. In particular, Canada should end all agricultural imports from South Africa, which account for half of our $275 million in yearly imports from that country.
A ban on the promotion in Canada of tourism in South Africa is also long overdue. Given the staggering state of affairs in South Africa and the report from the Eminent Persons Group indicating that violence there may ultimately cost millions of lives, ending the advertising of tourism is hardly the full response required by Canada.
Bishop Tutu told a crowd of 10,000 in Toronto only two weeks ago the following:
I stand here appealing to people of conscience. Help us, please help us. Our country is burning, our children are dying.
He told the crowd that economic sanctions are the only remaining non-violent means to end apartheid. He called on the Canadian Government to make a moral choice.
Ending the promotion of tourism is not enough. Canada should end all corporate and private investment in South Africa. It should make the Government's earlier announced voluntary sanctions mandatory. There should be an end to bank loans, oil sales and air links because only through such
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
economic measures can we hope to bring real pressure on the Government of South Africa.
Finally, the diplomatic efforts announced by the Minister are very welcome but here too I feel very strongly that we can do more. We can take an immediate initiative, without waiting until the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) meets with Mrs. Thatcher in July, to press upon the Thatcher Government the fundamental necessity of changing its position. We must also press immediately upon the United States, and the VicePresident of the United States is here now, the importance of a stronger American reaction to apartheid. My leader has already said that he will do that during his meeting with the Vice-President and I know the Minister will want to do the same thing.
Above all, we should not wait until August for the meeting of the seven Commonwealth heads. We must not wait until August. We must urge the Prime Minister to encourage the other six leaders to meet now. We must meet now if we are to bring about what is implied in every sentence of the report of the Eminent Persons Group, namely, economic sanctions, the only non-violent method to bring an end to apartheid.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time on a point of order with respect to allegations appearing in an article written by Derik Hodgson in this morning's Toronto Sun, allegations which may tend to give rise to disorder in the House. In that article I am alleged to have shouted an obscenity across the floor during yesterday's Question Period. At no time did I utter the words attributed to me nor would I. What I cannot condone when committed by other Members I refuse to engage in myself.
Notwithstanding my conviction and knowledge that I did not say those words attributed to me, I checked carefully the transcript of Hansard as well as the sound and television records. There was nothing there that indicated that any such words or any words that could be interpreted as being remotely similar to the allegations made against me were spoken.
I think it is also important to note that at the time I am alleged to have made the statement in the House, I was engaged outside the Chamber with the House Leader of the Official Opposition discussing inter-Party negotiations with respect to the extension of hours of the House of Commons during the last sitting days.
If I had used the words in question, I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I would have been the first one to rise to withdraw those words unequivocally. I think obscenity in the House is unacceptable and that all Members agree with me. I simply say that I did not say those words. I hope that Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
June 12, 1986
Committee Reports
Hodgson and the people who are involved in publishing the Toronto Sun will print an absolute retraction with respect to this allegation which I think does a disservice to this institution. As an Officer of the House, I very much regret anything that does a disservice to the House of Commons which we all love so well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-88, an Act to authorize the acquisition of Marine Atlantic Inc. and to provide for other matters in relation thereto, I have the honour to report the Bill to the House in both official languages. Your committee has considered Bill C-88 and has agreed to report it without amendment.


EIGHTH REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration concerning a request for an extension of its reporting deadline on the order of reference relating to family-class immigration. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.


DUTIES RELIEF ACT-REPORT OF THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-98, the Duties Relief Act, I have the honour to report the Bill to the House in both official languages. Your committee has considered Bill C-98 and has agreed to report it without amendment.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present to the House a petition from a number of residents of the coast of British Columbia urging that the House redress a very serious grievance concerning the removal of staff from lighthouses on the coast of British Columbia. The petitioners point out that this will in fact create a danger to air transportation and marine transportation on
the coast of B.C. and urge the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to call a public inquiry into the matter.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a second petition concerning unemplyoment insurance. This is from numerous retired armed forces members who continue to express their serious concern about the Government's removal of their rights and the access to unemployment insurance for those people who are retiring from the forces and urge that their benefits under the previous legislation be reinstated.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition concerning the closing of Rideau Hall and the grounds surrounding that historic property. Area residents and visitors to the National Capital Region are asking the Government and Parliament to change the decision to close the grounds to the general public, so that there will be further consultations with a group of citizens representing the large and growing opposition to the closing of the grounds in order to find a modus vivendi that will both cope with security measures and the freedom of access to those green spaces.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I also have some 60 petitions signed by over 1,500 people from my riding and visitors to the Byward Market, the primary heritage area and tourist attraction in my riding. The petitioners are asking, since the City of Ottawa is considering a proposal to construct a 17-storey building in the heart of the Byward Market, since the National Capital Commission is an agent of Parliament and major actor and property owner in the Byward Market, and since we have invested millions of dollars in the properties in the Byward Market, the House of Commons and Parliament assembled to ask the National Capital Commission to state its position for or against the above development and the proposed constrution.



FARM DEBT REVIEW ACT


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-117, an Act to facilitate financial arrangements between farmers and their creditors.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 12, 1986


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

['Perhaps I should have telephones installed in the green buses-no, not really.']
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I should like at this time to move concurrence in the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, presented to the House earlier this day.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 561 and 562.


Mr. Althouse: Is there an industry advisory committee for agriculture, food and beverages to assist the Government in trade negotiations with the United States and, if so, what is the name of each member and (a) in which province does he/she currently reside (b) what is his/her occupation (c) in which company is he/she currently employed?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes. The Chairman is Mr. Benoit Lavigne, an agricultural consultant from the Province of Quebec. Mr. Lavigne, in consultation with the Minister of International Trade, will be choosing approximately 15 other members. The membership should be announced in the near future.


Mr. Althouse: 1.	What was the total cost of each volume of the Study Team Report to the Task Force on Program Review?
2.	With reference to the report on agriculture, what were the expenses for (a) study team members, including (i) per diems (ii) travel (iii) accommodation (iv) other (b) research and support staff, including (i) stipends (ii) travel (iii) accommodation (iv) other (c) rental charges (d) printing (e) distribution?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: 1. The total cost of printing and photocopying of the volumes of the Study Team Report to the Task
Order Paper Questions
Force on Program Review was $343,703.62. The cost of each volume is unavailable.
2. With reference to the report on agriculture the expenses for: (a) study team members, were as follows: (i) per diems: nil, (ii) travel: $16,185.71, (iii) accommodation: $3,581.72, (iv) other: $2,416.28.
(b)	Research and support staff: The cost of research and support staff including secretaries and temporary help was not accounted for by study teams and therefore the cost for the agriculture study team is not available from our records.
(c)	, (d) and (e) See part 1 above.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: May I inform the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 20 minutes beginning at 10 o'clock this evening. Therefore, the adjournment proceedings will begin at 10.20 p.m.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to appeal Your Honour's decision, but I should like to know on the basis of what regulation or Standing Order we are working which would allow us to sit extra time at ten o'clock. I thought the idea at the beginning was to extend Government Orders into the luncheon hour. Since we are not taking a luncheon break-


Mr. Tobin:: And no supper break.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -I know of no provisions in the Standing Orders which say that we must sit after ten o'clock.


Mr. Deans:: Mr. Speaker, without arguing the merit from a technical point of view, I think there would be agreement among the House Leaders not to extend the sitting beyond 10 p.m. It probably would be unnecessary, and therefore I would suggest that we not make that decision at the moment. Perhaps we could get back to Your Honour and offer some compromise which we will have worked out in the meantime.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I was to make a 20-minute speech today. Perhaps each of the House Leaders could agree to making 10-minute speeches and accommodating the House. In any event, we will get back to Your Honour after Question Period.

June 12, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Deans POINT OF ORDER


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I beg your indulgence to allow me to raise a point of order with regard to a matter which was of some concern to me overnight.
I have had an opportunity to reflect upon the proceedings of yesterday; and I do not want to reflect upon them in the House because I recognize that that would be improper. However, I was wondering whether I might ask Your Honour to consider the possibility of inviting House Leaders to join with you at some point between now and an appropriate time in the near future to discuss ways and means which might be put in place to avoid a repetition of what occurred yesterday in the House of Commons.
Without placing blame in any way, yesterday's events were unfortunate. They reflected badly upon the House. Without in any way trying to dampen the exuberance of Hon. Members in the pursuit of their various and many responsibilities, if the question could be discussed among the House leadership, we might be able to come up with some informal way of trying to avoid any such repetition.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) and I have discussed the matter. I am glad to see that the Hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition is in the House now. I share the point of view. We discussed the advisability of having an opportunity as House Leaders, at Your Honour's request, to discuss ways in which we may consider, in the best interest of the House of Commons and the service we all want to perform on behalf of Canadians, methods of dealing with the question of decorum.
I whole-heartedly support and agree, as I indicated in discussions before with the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain, as have all House Leaders agreed on previous occasions. It is important for us to find methods by which we can in fact continue with free and unfettered debate on the floor of the House of Commons, while at the same time maintaining a sense of decorum. I think the people of Canada would applaud all Hon. Members of Parliament if they worked together toward that end. Mr. Speaker, if you are so inclined, I will be available at any time.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, certainly as House Leader of the Official Opposition I have, as I hope have all Hon. Members of the House, an interest in the continued operation of this institution as an integral and central part of our process of governing. Therefore, I would be happy to have an exchange of views with my colleagues on the subject raised by the House Leader of the New Democratic Party.
I want to say, however, in this regard that what the House Leader of the New Democratic Party mentioned is something that should be of equal importance to all sides of the House. In this connection I think there is a particular responsibility, even
though I have said it is of importance to Members on all sides of the House, on those occupying the ministerial benches, because very often their approach to proceedings in the House has something to do with the attitude of the House as a whole.
Having said that, I would be very happy to meet with my colleagues to discuss this matter further.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the House Leaders. It should come of some interest to them to know that I asked my office to start calling their offices at about 10.45 this morning to try to arrange such a meeting.


Ian Deans: I was on a green bus.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should have telephones installed in the green buses-no, not really.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, June 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-75, an Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to amend the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, the Maritime Code Act and the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to carry on where I left off yesterday having made a very cursory examination of some of the problems that we in the Opposition in the Liberal Party see with Bill C-75. I might briefly review the three major points I made yesterday before I introduce new material for debate today.
Members will recall that I had concluded yesterday afternoon on behalf of my Party by saying that the Canada Shipping Act is some decades old, has been around for many years without amendment and undoubtedly needs a good housecleaning job and needs to be brought up to date. That is the Minister's responsibility, and failure to do otherwise would be a failure by the Minister to carry out his duties.
Bill C-75 started out as a good, sensible exercise, one supported by opposition Parties-the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party-and the government benches but, more important, was an exercise in updating a decades old Bill supported by those clients of the Minister and, in particular, those clients affected by the Bill itself. Here I am talking about the people in Canada involved in the shipping industry. Whether we talk to those who run the great ships that ply the St. Lawrence Seaway, the great freighters that move across the Atlantic and Pacific Ocean into Canadian ports, those
June 12, 1986

people who are running pleasure craft for moving tourists around Canada's great national parks in some of the most beautiful locations in our country, the fishermen, skippers of large fishing vessels or even those people who are in laser sail boats and canoes, everybody agrees that the Bill is decades old and needs to be reviewed and updated.
Having made that point about the unanimous opinion of all the clients affected by Bill C-75, that an update of Bill C-75 is required, let me hasten to add that practically without exception, which is an incredible phenomenon in itself, all of those same users and clients affected by Bill C-75 have expressed grave reservation about one particular clause in the Bill, namely, Clause 4.
As I said yesterday, Clause 4 does not result from updating, upgrading or modernizing something that heretofor existed. Clause 4 is a brand new animal that has been introduced in a Bill that otherwise, having gone through the housecleaning process, would have been one that I could have stood in my place today and supported. Clause 4 does not sound too ominous. It does not sound too threatening. Nor does it sound too devastating unless one takes the time to examine the Bill to find out exactly what the new provision is which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) has offered for public consumption and, indeed, for public consideration and debate in this House of Commons.
What is it, Mr. Speaker? I describe it as being akin to a gun. Anytime I am with someone to whom I pass a gun, particularly when he demands that the gun be loaded, I want to know what the target is. I want to know who is about to be shot. Clause 4 is a provision in Bill C-75 that gives the Minister of Transport the power to impose user charges for services that have historically, over the decades and down through the generations, been provided in this great marine country-the great Atlantic and Pacific coasts-as a matter of right of citizenship.
Some Members will be wondering what we are talking about. What services have been provided as a matter of right to Canadians in the country that the Minister suddenly wants to tell people they are going to pay for. What services? We are talking about aids to navigation, buoys, lighthouses, radio aids, dredging, et cetera. We are talking about ship movement systems and services. We are talking about ice-breaking, Arctic and other ship support. We are talking about-and this is the most scandalous and disappointing, this is the one that clutches at the heart-marine search and rescue. Canada will respond to the desperate and life-threatening need of one of its citizens providing that citizen is going to pay.


J. Michael Forrestall: That is not true.


Brian Vincent Tobin: We value the life, liberty, limb, health and welfare of one of our citizens providing that person is going to pay.


J. Michael Forrestall: That is not so.
Canada Shipping Act


Brian Vincent Tobin: It is the same kind of mentality that exists south of the border which does not have a medicare system. You are in good hands and you can have the best of service south of the border provided you have a fat wallet.
What other services is the Government going to charge for?
I suggest it is public wharves and harbours, direction, administration, for a total bill now being paid out by the Government of Canada on behalf of all of our citizens to ensure that this great, not land-locked country, but I imagine-I am not quite sure-the country in the world with the largest coastline of any nation. If one looks at the Atlantic coastline, the Pacific coastline, the northern coastline and Arctic waters, there is no other nation on earth with as much coastline.
Logically, as an extension of the reality that we are a marine nation, the Government of Canada historically in its wisdom, I must say without regard to partisanship, be they PC Governments or Liberal Governments-I am sure even my colleagues in the New Democratic Party if they had an opportunity to govern would pursue this course-has provided marine services. This has been done in recognition of the reality that we are a marine nation, and with an understanding and recognizing of our environment demands-that the Government of Canada should provide facilities to ensure that our people can exist and carry on, no matter where they live.
The cost to the country of providing this infrastructure, which is a measure of sovereignty and necessary to good citizenship and commerce, which after all benefits the whole country whether you happen to live on the coastline where the goods come in or in Toronto where the goods are received, has been $824 million. The Government of Canada has now decided that it wants to impose a user pay concept. The Government wants to recover some of those costs. That in itself is not such a shocking notion. It is questionable and debatable. One could argue whether it is possible that certain industries can afford to have this extra charge imposed on their backs over and above their personal and corporate income tax, because they thought that paying personal and corporate income tax was to look after these charges. One could perhaps argue whether it is even economically viable.
The Government is not just going to bring in these new user-pay charges, but seeks the authority in Bill C-75 to impose those charges. Yet the Government will not tell anybody in this House or anywhere else in the country what those charges are going to be until later. To go back to my analogy of the gun, the Minister is asking for the gun he is asking for the bullet in the breech, he is asking for the barrel to be primed and he will tell us later who he is shooting. As a fishermen said to me on the wharf in Little Port a few weeks ago, he is afraid that he won't know who the Minister's target is until he gets a bullet right between the eyes. It is a poor time to find out which way the gun is being aimed when you have discovered that your head has been aerated by the irresponsible aim of a Minister of Transport who has not understood the full implications of this user pay philosophy.

June 12, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
How is it that we can responsibly be expected to regard ourselves as Members of Parliament? What does that mean, "Members of Parliament"? Are we a bunch of people who have come here to speak in these hallowed halls, listening to our voices reflecting off the marble pillars, bouncing back at us, attending cocktail parties, sending our householders out four times a year and showing up at election time with a ready smile and a commitment to work hard again? Is that why we are, or are we here to make and examine legislation and to reflect the interests, the concerns and the views of our constituents?
If we are here to make legislation and to reflect the views and the concerns of our constituents, it is an insult, not to Members of Parliament but to the people who send us here, that we should be asked to pass a Bill this day that has contained within it the power and authority given to the Minister of Transport to impose charges on our constituents. I cannot tell my constituents, as this Bill goes sliding through the House, what those charges are going to be. I cannot even tell them if they are going to be charged, if they will be charged how much, or if how much for how long. The Minister says that we should give him the authority now and he will tell us how he is going to use it later.
In Boston a few hundred years ago they tossed the tea over the wharf. It was called the Boston Tea Party. Maybe we need a replay. Those people were standing up for the principle that there shall be no taxation without representation. In this case our constituents have representation in this place, but the representatives are being asked to allow the Minister a new taxing power without knowledge of how the Minister intends to use that power.
The Minister has never had this power before. Throughout the annals of the history of the Parliament of Canada, one cannot find an iota of a power similar to that which the Minister is demanding today. If we were to allow that kind of a measure to go through this House unchallenged as if we were a sea of blind men and women, then the role we play in this House would be no more important than that of the mace which sits on the table. The mace sits unemotionally, uncaring, and unconcerned day in and day out, a blind symbol of authority which can sometimes be used wisely and other times abused. I stand today because I will not have my constituents, through me, insulted by this kind of arrogant, insensitive, uncaring, undemocratic, brutal, blind, and vicious measure called Clause 4.
Clause 4 will not affect only my constituents. In relation to the Canada Shipping Act I am concerned primarily, but not exclusively, about the fishermen of my riding. Fishermen in my riding live on the great northern peninsula, the Port au Port Peninsula, the Bay of Islands, the White Bay region, the northeast coast of Newfoundland, and the great historic and beautiful area of the northeast coast of Notre Dame Bay. I speak as well because I am a Canadian. I understand that my
job is to be a member of the Parliament of Canada, albeit from Newfoundland.
I speak as well for fishermen who live in the great Province of British Columbia, those fishermen tied up at the wharves in the community of Prince Rupert, along the British Columbia coast line and in the area of Vancouver Island. I speak as well for those fishermen who live in the great province of Nova Scotia, be it Southwest Nova or on the great island of Cape Breton. I speak as well for fishermen in P.E.I. and New Brunswick who do not have a voice in this place today because too many Members are prepared, as time grows short and we move toward a recess, to sit silently and blindly allow this measure to pass through Parliament. We in the Liberal Party are not prepared to do that. I hope that when I resume my seat we will find that other Members in the House, perhaps even the Parliamentary Secretary, are not prepared to allow that.
I would like to make people understand those who are about to be affected by the powers contained in Clause 4.


Mr. Dingwall:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday in the midst of Question Period I made a very unparliamentary comment to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) which I subsequently withdrew. I wish to apologize to the Prime Minister for the use of that language. I wish to apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, for the use of that unparliamentary language. I apologize to all Members of Parliament because I believe that conduct is unwarranted in this Chamber.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I was saying a moment ago that I would like to put a human face on those people who are the recipients of the measures contained in Clause 4. I think I can best do that by reminding Members that through Clause 4 the Government wants to charge for ice-breaking services. Some Canadians might ask themselves what is so bad about that. I will describe a typical community on the great northern peninsula of Newfoundland, an area which I know well because I represent it. That area has an ice-breaking problem.
I will not use as an example a large urban community on the great northern peninsula because such a community has 700 or 800 residents. I will use as an example the small community of Flower's Cove or the community of Port au Choix. People live in those communities by choice because they appreciate a particular way of life. They appreciate a connection with mother earth, uncrowded villages, uncrowded highways, low crime rates, fresh air, a clean environment and a chance to make a living, not in the steel, concrete and glass towers of Ottawa, Toronto, or Montreal, not at the end of a high tech piece of computer technology and not in the rat race of the merchandising centres in the concrete canyons of our cities, but off the land and the sea.
They happen to live in an area where the fishing is good in season. However, on the great northern peninsula in the month of November or December they quit fishing because the
June 12, 1986

weather gets cold and the cold temperatures of the icy waters will kill a man in 60 seconds if he goes in. When the ice moves in on the coastline it remains frozen solid 15 and 20 feet thick along the shoreline separating their boats and themselves from the resources of the sea from November or December until June and, in some years, July. If mother nature does not come to move that ice in June, occasionally my constituents and friends call upon the Government of Canada to send an icebreaker to break that ice. One sweep comes through and breaks it up and helps the wind move it off. It used to be when the ice sat there they would hunt for seals in the spring of the year. They cannot do that anymore so they want to go fishing. After a long winter of unemployment insurance, which my fishermen are grateful for but would rather not have if they could be working, they want that ice moved because they want to get back to work and put bread and butter on the table. The Minister is saying in this legislation that they can get back to work, they can put bread and butter on the table, the Government of Canada will move the ice as it has for decades, but now they are going to pay. Someone has to pay. For a Canadian living in Port au Choix, Flower's Cove, Anchor Point or Trout River, the cost of being a Canadian has gone up. The cost of being a Canadian on Vancouver Island, where these facilities are needed, is going up.
Those of you in this great maritime nation who occupy our Pacific or Atlantic coastline will pay for the privilege of living in areas which already suffer rates of unemployment much higher than the national average. I think that puts a little bit of a human face on this clinical legislation, this clinical Clause 4, cost recovery. When this kind of measure is passed, you place on the backs of some of Canada's most hard-pressed citizens an economic burden they simply cannot bear. That is the kind of measure the Government proceeds with.
As I said earlier, I do not speak just for Fishermen, be they in Newfoundland or elsewhere. There are others who will be negatively affected by this Bill, both in this country and outside. Virtually every witness who appeared before the legislative committee on Bill C-75 expressed concern about Clause 4. The fishermen did not come and say they do not want to pay anything more. The people plying the Great Lakes did not come and say they do not want to pay anything more. The Council of Boating Organizations of Canada did not come and say they do not want to pay anything more. They simply asked the Government if it would mind telling them what it expects them to pay before this authority is given to the Minister, that is all. Even though this has never been done before in the history of the Department, these people did not say they were not prepared to dig deeper in their pockets to Find the last few spare pennies and cough them up. They were only saying that before Parliament gives the Minister the authority to impose these charges, they want to know what it was going to cost them, what is their share.
Canada Shipping Act
Let us examine together whether or not in the course of trying to make the goose lay one more golden egg the Government will kill the goose. Let us try to find out, before we try and make the St. Lawrence Seaway lay some more revenues on the Government of Canada, whether we will kill the Seaway. The Government has even managed to hit farmers in this Bill. Potato farmers in P.E.I. are going to pay for icebreaking services so they can get their potatoes to market. The cost of raising those potatoes is two or three cents a pound more than what they sell for. They are operating at a loss. The farmers are saying let them find out before you impose an additional charge on them whether or not you are going to break their backs. Fishermen are saying the same thing. The Government says no, trust it, give it the power, the gun and the ammunition and they will find out what those charges are going to be a year from now.
I have in my hand a telex to Mr. Forrestall, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. They are contacting him to express the very serious concerns of Prince Edward Island fishermen regarding some provisions included in Bill C-75. They wanted their comments expressed to the committee studying the proposed legislation. Fishermen are concerned about the long range implications for them of the amendments in Clause 4 of the Bill to the Canada Shipping Act.
They go on to point out that if the charges are imposed on the Fishery in that province in an indiscriminate manner, it could break the back of the fishery in that province. I do not know whether that has been responded to or acknowledged in committee, but certainly the message has not gotten through.
Who else has opposed Clause 4? The Council of Boating Organizations of Canada says Clause 4 departs from the principle of cost recovery by Government, that principle being based on the theory of user pay. It is their contention that Parliament should not delegate a taxing power to the Canadian Coast Guard. The Great Lakes Waterways Development Association says the clause as it stands is too broad in scope and as a result has the potential of causing major disruption to the lake shipping industry and shippers with no assurance that it will achieve its announced objective of deficit reduction. It is a wonderful day in this country when we can get fishermen from P.E.I. and Newfoundland and the St. Lawrence Ship Owners Association involved in the same debate, saying the same thing. When has that ever been seen before? Those in the corporate boardrooms and the fellow sitting at the end of the wharf on top of his lobster pots are saying the same thing and coming to the same conclusion.
The St. Lawrence Ship Owners Association says it does not agree that we should give the Government a blank cheque which would allow it to set a fee system about which they know nothing at present. I mentioned the farmers getting into the act. The Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia came before the legislative committee. They urged the committee to consider the competitive position of exports and the port position. The Government can recover costs, but they can be out of business because they do not know what the

June 12, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
charges are going to be. The Seafarers International Union says we cannot have full cost recovery if the Canadian marine industry is to survive.
Imagine, not only the fellows in the corporate boardrooms of the shipping companies, not only the fisherman at the end of the wharf sitting on his lobster pot, but the unions representing the employees of those fellows who is sit in their corporate boardrooms are coming to this conclusion. Of course, they say, we will lose jobs on certain cargoes, the lake companies will just not be able to compete. The union is standing up and defending the interests of their employer. Is that not an incredible phenomenon? How often do we see the union coming before a legislative committee to say that the boys in the corporate boardrooms, sitting in their concrete and glass towers at the end of a fat cigar, are right? This Bill is irresponsible.
The Canadian Harbour Commission reports there is great potential for discrimination in such an open ended legislation as proposed in the new Clause 4 against Canadian ports. Having regard to the international association of Great Lake Ports, the single concern of this organization is the future competitiveness of the Great Lakes. Its competitiveness is now threatened. Toll increases announced in 1986 will result in a further decrease in volume. Charges imposed as a result of Clause 4 will cause deterioration of an already faltering system.
I noted on the national news last week that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was in the Province of Quebec and he met with the Minister of Transportation for that Province, Mr. Cote. He also met with the Premier of Quebec. I think we are all aware in this Parliament that one of the great issues about which discussions take place in meetings between federal Government and provincial Government representatives in Quebec is the issue of the Constitution. I am sure that was discussed. You know, Mr. Speaker, being from the great Province of Quebec, that the economy in Quebec is also on the minds of the people of Quebec and her representatives. Despite the other important matters on the table in the meeting between the Prime Minister and the Premier of Quebec, what do we see on the national news? We saw the Prime Minister come out and tell reporters that he will have another look at Clause 4 of Bill C-75 before third reading.
Well, it is third reading time and the Prime Minister, if he has had another look, obviously did not take seriously this new mode of co-operation rather than confrontation, consultation rather than unilateral action. He did not take seriously the representations of the Minister of Transportation of Quebec, Mr. Cote, and the Premier of Quebec, who said get rid of Clause 4; when you can tell us how it is going to impact on our province and our industries then we are prepared to say yes, let us have some cost recovery, but get rid of it in the meantime.
What happened? The Prime Minister gave his commitment; he was going to have another look. Three or four days later, as
is usually the case when the Prime Minister gives his commitment, the world proceeds as usual, nothing has changed. Clause 4 is still retained as the most controversial item in the Bill.
One of the international associations of Great Lakes Ports says the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence Seaway system is a shared asset of Canada and the United States. For the first time in the history of the Seaway each country is moving unilaterally on matters involving the Seaway. Think about that. The St. Lawrence Seaway was built in the '50s, '40s, at a cost of $450 million at the time, shared between both countries, as a great artery of transportation through the North American continent jointly managed by both countries, an example of how we can co-operate and live together. That system, in the face of an attempt by the administration to engage in a free trade regime between our countries, is now going to be the subject of a joint administrative process which is going off in two different directions. Here is the Prime Minister of Canada telling the people of Canada that he can work out a comprehensive trade package for the country between Canada and the United States, and at the same time the Prime Minister of the country and his Government cannot work out a joint management system of the St. Lawrence Seaway system.
Some people are saying the Member is exaggerating. Surely it is not all that bad. Surely there is no problem. Let me enlighten Members and Canadians about what our partners in the management of the St. Lawrence Seaway are saying about this particular Bill and Clause 4.
Mr. Donald Rothwell, the President of the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association wrote the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), on June 3, only nine days ago, asking that the Leader of the Opposition ensure that Clause 4 not be retained in the Bill, that we speak against it. My leader responded and assured Mr. Rothwell that, indeed, we would raise the points he was concerned about during the course of the debate in Parliament.
Mr. Rothwell is a very hard working fellow. He quite nicely included in the letter he sent the Leader of the Opposition a number of what he thought were relevant representations that have been made regarding Clause 4. Let us examine some of those representations.
We have a letter here to the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, from ULS International Inc., obviously on friendly footing with the Prime Minister. It states:
Dear Brian: I would like to draw to your attention our concern over Clause 4 of Bill C-75. In its present form the authority it provides this and future Governments to charge for coast guard services is virtually unconstrained. As a result the potential for economic dislocation to the detriment of Great Lakes-St. Lawrence traffic is openended. Bearing in mind your interest in the economic progress of ports on the Lower St. Lawrence-
That is an area the Prime Minister knows something about, he represents that part of Quebec, or near that part of Quebec.
June 12, 1986

-I know it is unnecessary to recite recent statistics to prove that utilization by both grain and iron ore was in free fall last year. The tonnage is down on the St. Lawrence Seaway culminating a downward trend that began in 1979.
Clearly positive action is required if that trend is to be reversed before permanent damage is done in this context. The imposition of any additional cost at this time is extremely negative.
Clause 4 requires a great deal of revision before it is ready to be passed into legislation. In view of the fact that it would be totally inappropriate to impose any fees for coast guard services under conditions forecast for this year and next, this time should be used to draft soundly conceived legislation. In the meantime Clause 4 should be removed from Bill C-75. I urge you to take that action before serious damage is done.
Yours sincerely,
The Chairman.
That is a letter written to the Prime Minister nine days ago urging him to remove Clause 4 from Bill C-75.
Notwithstanding the fact that that letter was written, notwithstanding the fact that the Premier of Quebec as recently as last week received a commitment from the Prime Minister to have another look at Clause 4, here we are today with what I call a festering sore that has been grafted onto what is otherwise a decent Bill still in place, namely, Clause 4. That is not too serious just yet.
A moment ago I said it is inconceivable to me that the Government would claim it could make a free trade deal with the Government of the United States, a comprehensive deal, if it cannot even do its part in jointly managing the St. Lawrence Seaway system which, after all, is co-owned and co-managed by both Canada and the United States. In Canada the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority looks after our part of managing the St. Lawrence Seaway, and in the United States the Great Lakes Commission looks after their end of the deal.
The Great Lakes Commission, our co-partners in managing the Seaway has also written the Prime Minister of Canada. May I, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, read their letter?
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:-
Not as familiar as the previous fellow, no "Dear Brian".
-the Great Lakes Commission is deeply concerned about proposed Bill C-75 which would authorize the imposition of cost recovery for Canadian coast guard services.
The Commission respects Canada's need to raise additional revenues. It also accepts Canada's choice of user fees as one vehicle to accomplish that end. However, the Commission, as the only co-ordinating and advocacy agency established by the States and approved by Congress to provide a collective voice for the eight Great Lake states on water resource and related issues, would be remiss if it did not express opposition to the current language of Bill C-75.
The Commission has monitored the progress of C-75 in Parliament, has participated in regional discussions about potential impacts of the Coast Guard cost recovery provision. Clause 4.
There is that dastardly Clause 4 again. The British Columbia Council of Forest Industries, the farmers in Prince Edward Island, the fishermen in Newfoundland, Atlantic Canada and along the coast of British Columbia, those fellows in the corporate boardrooms of the shipping companies and the American Great Lakes Commission all identify this unsightly
Canada Shipping Act
wart of Clause 4 on what is otherwise an almost pristine piece of decent legislation.
The Commission emphasizes four provisions that it believes to be necessary before this legislation can proceed. Federal user fees should be uniform in application from seaport to seaport, from coastal range to coastal range. There must be clear determination of the purpose for which fees are to be collected and the activities to which they are to be applied in advance of passing the legislation. Any fee system as it may affect the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence system should be coordinated with U.S. cost recovery programs and should give due consideration to total elimination of existing St. Lawrence Seaway system tolls. In other words, they want to go the other way and make the system more competitive. Finally, they recommend that any user-fee proposal should involve thorough public consultation with all user groups.
They go on to note that they have been in touch with Canada's Ambassador, Mr. Gotlieb, and appreciate his presence at the Commission's semi-annual meeting in Washington. They quote the Ambassador as having told them: "There is no doubt that your interest as a vitally affected party will not be ignored in the development of any user-fee program."
I want to tell the Great Lakes Commission that they are in good company. They are in the same company as the Premier and the Minister of Transportation for Quebec, the fishermen of Atlantic Canada, Canada's shipping industry and hundreds of witnesses who have made submissions before the legislative committee. The Great Lakes Commission, the American authority, has been treated even-handedly and fairly, and no better or worse than Canadians. They too have been ignored. Their advice has been sloughed off and we are debating this measure which should have been flung over the wharf, as my friends at home would say.
We have a letter from our Ambassador, who speaks on behalf of Canada, to the Southwest Senate Coalition. These Senators who represent the states along the Great Lakes are also concerned about Clause 4. In a lengthy letter, which I will not read in its entirety, the Ambassador assured them that their concerns will be looked at and we will try to work in conjunction with them. That has not happened.
Who did the Government disappoint down south, after saying it would work with them in jointly managing the Seaway? They are, to name a few, Alan J. Dixon, a U.S. Senator. John Glenn, a former astronaut, who is now a U.S. Senator, and the others; Carl Levin, Rudy Boschwitz, Don Quayle, William Proxmire, David Durenberger, Richard Lugar, Donald Riegle Jr., Bob Kasten, Jr., Howard Metzen-baum and Paul Simon, all of whom are U.S. Senators. All of them have written to the Prime Minister of Canada and have been in contact with our Ambassador, expressing their concern that Canada would proceed with one user-fee recovery system on the Seaway while the Americans are going in the other direction.

June 12, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
Given that the concern expressed by these U.S. Senators was made on April 14 in a letter to the Prime Minister, is it any wonder that the U.S. Senate almost defeated a motion to proceed with free trade talks with Canada in a vote of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee? These 10 influential Senators, who represent 10 per cent of the total U.S. Senate, discovered that we cannot even get our act together in jointly managing the St. Lawrence Seaway. Is it any wonder that the Senate is sceptical about Canada understanding what is involved in trying to negotiate a comprehensive trade pact?


J. Michael Forrestall: What does this have to do with Bill C-75?


Brian Vincent Tobin: It has everything to do with Bill C-75 because Bill C-75 will apply to the St. Lawrence Seaway which is jointly managed by Canada and the United States. The American authority has written to the Prime Minister of Canada to ask what the Government is doing because it is going left while the Americans are going right. They say that such an approach will not work if we are to work together. It has everything to do with Bill C-75. If the Americans come to the conclusion that we are unable to run the St. Lawrence Seaway, surely no one would be surprised at their scepticism that the Government can get its act together to negotiate a free trade arrangement.
I have another letter which the Great Lakes Waterways Development Association wrote to the Prime Minister. They point out that it has been recognized that the traffic conditions on the lake Seaway system are not likely to be capable of supporting any further Government charges for at least the next two years. They suggest that the intervening time be used to redraft Clause 4. They say: "In the meantime, we recommend it be removed from Bill C-75 prior to enactment."
Incredible as it may seem, all of these people have been ignored by the Government of Canada. The Minister of Transport, sitting in one of those mirrored office buildings here in Ottawa, has somehow developed the notion that he is more sensitive and more aware of what is happening in the Great Lakes area of the St. Lawrence Seaway, and better understands how to meet the bottom line than all those organizations who make their bread and butter from and recognize the value of that major artery which moves the life blood of this country. He believes that he knows better than all of them and will proceed with this legislation.
Somehow the Minister has prevailed over the international representations of the U.S. Great Lakes Commission, the representations of Canada's major shipping industries, the representations of the little people in this country who are trying to scrape a living out of the sea and this clause is still in the Bill. Somehow he has prevailed over the commitment given by the Prime Minister to the Premier of Quebec last week.
I consider the Minister to be an intelligent person. I do not believe that he is insensitive or that one must hit him over the head with a hammer to get his attention. Therefore, the obvious reason why this measure is being pursued is that it is an extension to this particular Department of the user-pay
philosophy that the Government is imposing on every agency of the Government of Canada.
This is part of the Government's plan to operate its services and agencies much like McDonald's operates its hamburger stores. MacDonald's is a market driven company. It is going to sell hamburgers if the volume is right. It will build a store where the population is high enough. One will not find a MacDonald's hamburger joint in Trout River, in the great northern peninsula of my riding, or in St. Anthony, or in Port-au-Basques.
If the Government continues with its philosophy, one will not find a federal Government presence in any of those places either. The Government has now decided we are going to run the Government of Canada and its services in the same way in which MacDonald sells hamburgers. Where population warrants, where volume is high, where we can make a go of it, we will have a service. And all those Canadians who live where populations are not high and we cannot make a profit, we will not have a service. I want to tell the Government that it is not its mandate to function like MacDonald's hamburgers. The people of this country are not, in the strict sense of the word, shareholders in this business. Budgets are not designed to provide attractive numbers for accountants to look at. Budgets are about people. The Department of Transport does not serve as an entity unto itself, to meet its own internal objectives. The Department of Transport is an arm of Government. It is an extension of the people, providing the people with the services they need, depending on where they live. The philosophy, somehow, in a short 18 months, has been turned on its head so that the Department of Transport and, indeed, many departments of the Government, have taken on more the philosophy of MacDonald's than the philosophy of an agency responsible to its shareholders, and some of the shareholders live in places other than Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. They live along the coastlines of this great country.
I have been talking about the St. Lawrence Seaway-


J. Michael Forrestall: You are not talking about anything. You are filibustering.


Brian Vincent Tobin: -trying to suggest to the Government that to bring these additional charges to bear on the Seaway and the companies operating on the Seaway at this time is irresponsible. The banner headline in the Windsor Star last fall reads: "The St. Lawrence Seaway Crumbling". A banner of another newspaper last April reads: "Low Volume Has Seaway Struggling to Keep Afloat". Another headline reads: "Seaway Dying from Neglect, Shipper Says". Here is another headline: "The Foundering Seaway", and again another: "The St. Lawrence Seaway Has to Fix More than a Broken Lock". And yet another: "Canal Lock-out. A Collapsed Wall Halts Shipping in Foundering Seaway". If the St. Lawrence Seaway was a human being, it would be akin to a fellow floating in the water, having gone down twice and having taken in a lung-full
June 12, 1986

of water, and the Government comes to his rescue by throwing an achor into the water and taking him straight to the bottom.
The fact is that the Seaway is in trouble. Traffic in the St. Lawrence Seaway is being siphoned off to other routes, one of which is most worrisome, that is the Mississippi route. There are no user charges on the Mississippi. We have had a bridge collapse so that we were closed down and traffic over the last 24 months was blocked, which gave the St. Lawrence Seaway an international black eye. We had the wall of a canal collapse and trap a ship, which closed down the Seaway for another period of time.
Now when traffic is moving out of the Seaway what does the Government do? Does it intend to fix the Seaway up? No, it took $30 million held by the Seaway authorities in trust for expansion, and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) put it back into general revenues. The Government says: "We have to watch those fares. We are going to shoot ourselves in the foot. In our desire to get an extra penny, we are going to lose a dollar", and raises the tolls on the Welland Canal by 15 per cent. Does the Government say: "We have to restore the international reputation of the Seaway and provide some dollars for upgrading and renovation"? No. The Government brings in Bill C-75, which includes Clause 4, and on top of 15 per cent charge for new tolls on the Welland Canal, and on top of taking away $30 million with which the Seaway authorities had to work, it is now going to impose additional charges.
Some Hon. Members are saying: "Surely, that fellow from Newfoundland does not know what he is talking about. There is not really a serious problem on the Seaway". Well, if there is no problem with the Seaway, why has the Minister of Transport requested the Standing Committee on Transport, of which I am a member, to strike a subcommittee to go to work this summer to examine the problems of the St. Lawrence Seaway? Hon. Members of the House who are going to serve on that subcommittee on the one hand acknowledge there is disaster. It is like a fellow standing on the gallows with a noose around his neck about to go through the trap door. They acknowledge the situation. So the Government sets up an emergency task force to examine the problem and save the Seaway on the one hand, and on the other hand puts across the back of that system additional user charges. Never before in the history of Canada and in the history of the Canada Shipping Act has there been such a provision, such a power to lay charges. Heretofor, that had not even been contemplated, dreamed of or even existed.


J. Michael Forrestall: Nonsense. Go back to 1983 and check the record. Try to be relevant, will you?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Not nonsense, my friend. Never before has a Government come before its people and asked for authority to raise money without telling them in advance how much money is to be raised, who is to pay and what it is being paid for. Can you imagine that, Mr. Speaker? It is like a fellow who walks into the grocery store and meets the cashier who tells him to pay $200 now and pick up his groceries later. The Minister of
Canada Shipping Act
Transport is asking Parliament to give him the authority to raise money, but he is not going to tell us from whom it shall be raised, or how much will be raised.


J. Michael Forrestall: Why don't you talk about the consultative committee and the undertaking by the Minister? Why not tell the whole story, not just selected parts of it?


Brian Vincent Tobin: A consultative committee? The Hon. Member may not be aware but his constituents sent him here to represent their interests. I think in most regards he does a fairly good job of it, but if he believes his constituents sent him here to give the Minister of Transport this incredible and dangerous power-


Mr. Robichaud:: Choking power.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, choking power, a vile, dastardly, and undemocratic power. He wants this power now and will tell us later how it is to be imposed. He ought to go back to the nearest wharf and have a chat with the fishermen, and into the nearest corporate office and have a chat with the shippers. That is not why his constituents sent him or any other Hon. Member here. Does anyone want to consult with a fellow who has a gun in his hand? The Minister now has the power to impose the fees. He says to the fishermen: "I am here to consult with you. I now have Bill C-75, and Clause 4, through the House. I now legally have the power to impose whatever fees I want. I now come to you and ask if you mind". What kind of consultation is that?
I consulted a fellow like that once when I was 12. He consulted me a whole bunch. It was in a school-yard. In my back pocket I had a little play gun and this big bully came and consulted me. He said: "I want that gun". I said: "No, you can't have it". He pummelled me. He pounded me. He kicked me and stoned me. He left me lying in the dust, and he took my gun. The teacher said: "What happened?" I said: "He beat me up and took my gun away". He said: "No, I did not. I consulted him". That is the type of consultation the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) is having with the users of the country. Once he has this power, this authority granted through Parliament, is he going to consult with them? Don't be so silly! That type of consultation is the type of consultation that is happening in South Africa today. It is simply not good enough, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) so properly indicated to the House. We do not need that type of consultation in the country. It is not consultation by any stretch of the imagination, no matter how you look at it.
The St. Lawrence Seaway is doomed as a commercial sea link if Ottawa continues its policy of neglect. That is what Paul Martin, Junior, said, and he is owner of Canada's largest lake freighter fleet. "Posing an even greater threat to Great Lakes shipping are some of the proposed changes to the Canada Shipping Act," Martin said. The alterations as

June 12, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
currently worded have the Government levying additional fees on Seaway users to recover $800 million in annual costs to the Canadian Coast Guard and for maintaining navigational aids.
What do we find out in examining the Seaway patterns over the last number of years? We find out that the volume of Seaway traffic has been steadily eroding. It has been steadily declining. Last year, as compared to the previous year, there was a 27 per cent decrease in traffic. That is incredible. We are not talking about a system here that is just slightly wounded.


Mrs. Sparrow:: The grain is moving the other way.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is right. The Hon. Member from Calgary is absolutely right. The grain is moving the other way, and some of it is moving on the Mississippi system. It is going the other way and our system is not being used. Why? The perception is that it is not dependable. The perception out there in the world is that Canada is not committed to the Seaway, not committed to rejuvenating it. The reality in that perception is that the Government is attempting to lead, squeeze, pound, twist and turn every last penny possible out of the Seaway.
My mother, God bless her, used to have a very simple description of the Government's policy. She used to call it penny wise and pound foolish. The Government is nickelling and diming the carriers, which affects the traffic and the volume of it on the Seaway. Canadians will say: "Why should we be concerned?" If we cannot get the Government to commit itself to rejuvenating the Seaway then we will see its steady decline, its free fall continue. Literally tens of thousands of jobs will be lost, as will a major international artery, a major mode of transportation, be lost to the country. That is why Clause 4 has to be opposed, and opposed extremely vigorously.
Last season the decline of traffic on the Seaway was terrible. Some 37 million metric tonnes were carried on the Montreal-Lake Ontario section. That is a reduction of more than 20 per cent from previous seasons. Volumes on the Welland Canal sank 22 per cent to 42 million metric tonnes. Even worse, volumes and market share in grain and iron ore, which between them account for almost three-quarters of the Seaway's traffic, are steadily dwindling, as the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) mentioned a moment ago. Money is tight and it is becoming tighter. Last year total revenues totalled $47 million, some $11 million less than the previous year. The year before total revenues amounted to $58 million. We have seen a 22 per cent drop in traffic and an $11 million drop in total revenues, yet the Government says it can fix that, no problem. The Government says: "We can get that money back. We will raise the rates".


Mr. Riis:: Why is this happening?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Because the Government has not indicated to the people who use the Seaway that it has confidence in the Seaway, that it is prepared to invest in its future. Carriers are saying to themselves that the time has come. After all, it is an
aging Seaway. It is time for the Government to either recommit itself to the Seaway, to show signs that it is serious about its long-term future, or to begin the process of walking out.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Give me an example of that.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The carriers do not see the Government of Canada recommitting itself to the Seaway. They do not see the Government saying that the Seaway has a long-term future. Because they are in the business of moving bulk traffic they are saying: "We'd better find an alternate means of moving our traffic now before we get caught once again behind a collapsed bridge or a collapsed canal".
Why is the Government of Canada not serious about this matter? I will give the Hon. Member an example. The St. Lawrence Seaway Authority had removed from its jurisdiction $30 million in accumulated revenues by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) as a result of his Budget of last May. This was money which could have been spent by the authority in the pursuit of restoring confidence in the Seaway. Yet the Government, in the face of a disastrous year and in the face of declining tolls, took that money out of the hands of the Seaway. The Government did more than that. It increased by 15 per cent the tolls on the Welland Canal.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That doesn't seem fair.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Not only it is not fair, it is, as my dear mother would say, penny wise but pound foolish.
I say to the Government that the representations by the Great Lakes Seaway Authority, by American Senators, by our partners in the U.S. who help manage the Seaway, by the major carriers, by the Seafarers International Union, and by the Montreal Chamber of Commerce must be listened to. This is what the Montreal Chamber of Commerce had to say on the subject: "It is surprising that on every other aspect of Bill C-75 there has been extensive consultation with industry, but on Clause 4 there has been no consultation whatsoever". Those are the words of the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, which is the heart, the cradle of the St. Lawrence Seaway. It has said that there has been no consultation whatsoever.
Whatever happened to that brand new day that the Prime Minister promised Canadians? I ask Hon. Members if they remember that, or were we all asleep? Was it just a pleasant dream? Was it only something we thought occurred? Was it just an idle promise that we would see a brand new day for Canada, a day on which consultation and not confrontation would be the watchword? Did we not believe that it would be a day on which co-operation as opposed to unilateral action would be the watchword? Would it not be a day when the provinces and the federal Government would sit down at the same table and resolve some of their problems by discussion? Was that all a dream? Was I asleep? Was that the vision that was painted and trailed across the land for all Canadians to behold? Was that the vision that Canadians reached for desperately in excitement in returning 211 Members to the opposite side of the House? Or was it all a passing dream?
June 12, 1986


J. Michael Forrestall: You're a dreamer.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Are we now discovering that we have woken up and that the world is a nightmare in which the Montreal Chamber of Commerce, the very cradle of the St. Lawrence Seaway, can say with respect to Clause 4 that there has been no consultation whatsoever? The Montreal Chamber of Commerce also said that the problem is that in the case of Clause 4 of Bill C-75 there has been no prior consultation with either the shipping community or the business community in order to assess the economic and other impacts of the Bill. The Montreal Chamber of Commerce points out that the shipping industry has suffered very heavily economically during the last four or five years and that it is going through a depression. For this reason it is particularly costly and sensitive and will react very quickly to any change in cost.
What does the Canadian Merchant Service Guild say about Clause 4 of Bill C-75? The representatives of that guild are people of few words. They begin by saying that they are against Clause 4. That could not be any clearer. They go on to say that their concern is the loss of jobs because that is their business and that is what could happen.
Canada Steamships Limited has said that the Canadian shipping industry has carefully honed its competive edge through continuous innovation and productivity and that additional costs will dull that edge, harming them and many important Canadian industries including agriculture.


J. Michael Forrestall: Do they reject the principle of cost recovery?


Brian Vincent Tobin: No, they do not. That is the incredible thing. One would have to have the face of a robber's horse or the nerve of a toothache to make the comment that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Forrestall) just made. Do the representatives of Canada Steamships Limited reject the principle of cost recovery? Of course they do not reject the principle of cost recovery. They do reject the same thing that was rejected by the people who threw bags of tea into Boston Harbour, and that is taxation without representation.
Bill C-75 asks for an authority to impose charges while all of the users of the services are told that they will find out later what charges shall be imposed. They do not reject cost recovery. They reject dictatorship. They reject non-democratic action. They reject taxation without representation or consultation. They reject the arbitrary, arrogant, uncaring, brutal and ruthless move to recover costs even to the extent that it will ruin industries and cost jobs in Canada. That is what they reject.
I am amazed, puzzled, bewildered and absolutely surprised that the Government of Canada has not got that message. The Government promised the dawn of a brand new day for Canada, according to the Prime Minister, but it has not got
Canada Shipping Act
the message. I am amazed that the Government of Canada would proceed with this legislation.
I mentioned Canada Steamships Limited. It went on to say that Clause 4 could attempt to achieve a system of cost recovery whereby the high operating budget of the Canadian Coast Guard may be recovered primarily from a Canadian shipping industry which can ill afford additional charges at this time.
Representatives of Ultramar have said that they subscribe to the principle of cost recovery but there is no recognition that Canadian cost recovery policies need to be closely co-ordinated with those of the United States. As I pointed out earlier, the St. Lawrence Seaway is not under exclusive Canadian jurisdiction but under joint jurisdiction. We cannot even get our act together when managing that jointly. How in the name of heaven does the Government expect the people of Canada or, for that matter, the Americans to have any confidence that the Government is able and prepared to negotiate a comprehensive trade agreement if it cannot even run a seaway with coherent policies, particularly as it applies to user charges?
The Petroleum Association for the Conservation of the Environment wishes to endorse the position of seeking cost recovery but wants consultation on how charges are to be imposed before legislation is passed. The Canadian Shippers' Council has said the following:
You can be sure that any user-fees the Coast Guard levies will be passed directly to exporters with a consequent reduction in our competitiveness. User-fees for Coast Guard services could result in some cargo being diverted through the U.S. transportation system and through U.S. ports.
Let me read that again, Mr. Speaker. The Canadian Shippers' Council-note that it is Canadian-has said:
User-fees for Coast Guard services could result in some cargo being diverted through the U.S. transportation system and through U.S. ports.
What did I just say, Mr. Speaker? I just said that traffic on the Welland Canal is down by 22 per cent and that 37 million metric tons were carried on the Montreal-Lake Ontario section, a reduction of more than 20 per cent. Revenues are down by $11 million over the previous year. Traffic is moving to U.S. transportation systems creating jobs and new industries south of the border and increasing volumes on the Mississippi. The Seaway Authority is collapsing. The Canadian Shippers' Council is saying that user-fees will result in cargo being diverted south of the border.
Let us understand what we are talking about. We are not talking about inanimate objects being diverted south of the border. We are not talking about barges being diverted south of the border. We are not even talking about grain or cargo being diverted south of the border. We are talking about human beings. That is what these numbers symbolize. We are talking about jobs. We are talking about the ability to put bread and butter on the table. That is what is being diverted south of the border.
The people who currently hold the jobs that will be lost cannot move south of the border to take up those jobs. They
14284

June 12, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
will find themselves unemployed. South of the border, someone who did not have a job will get one. The Government of Canada is making a blood transfusion out of that major transportation artery, the St. Lawrence, to the Mississippi and other U.S. transportation systems.
What does Noranda have to say? Its representatives say that they feel the taxes for navigational aids and ice-breaking services would really penalize Noranda for operating in a climate and along a shoreline not of its choosing. Is that not the real issue? All of those companies that would wish to establish themselves in the riding of my friend from New Brunswick, the Province of Newfoundland or the Quebec north shore-another impoverished area which in fact is represented by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)-shall be penalized because they will have to pay the costs of the environment. The Government is going to charge them for the weather. It is cold in the North and cold creates ice. The Government of Canada will charge those companies that wish to provide regional development and jobs a penalty for setting up in those parts of the country along the coastline or in the North.
It is incredible that the Prime Minister, who was the President and chief operating officer of the Iron Ore Company of Canada which had mines in Quebec, Wabush and Labrador City and depended upon not only a rail link but on the St. Lawrence Seaway to move its product to market, would not respond to the respresentations of the very man who now occupies his job. The Prime Minister abandoned his job as the President of the Iron Ore Company of Canada just as he abandoned Schefferville which was closed down. He abandoned the salary, job and title that he used as a stepping stone to get the job of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead. Did he abandon the region when he abandoned his principles? Did he abandon the concept of regional development? Did he really want to run for election in Montreal or perhaps a suburb of Toronto? He walked away from Schefferville by closing it down and waiting for it to be bulldozed over. He was an employee of an American company because Iron Ore Company of Canada is a subsidiary of a big American concern. He had been working for that company for a long time. As President of the Iron Ore Company, he abandoned Schefferville, watched the ploughs come in to bulldoze it over, and arranged for pension cheques to be paid out because he was running for the leadership of the Conservative Party. Did he just abandon the town, or did he abandon the concept that Canadians have a right to services no matter where they live in the country?
We have noted that the Government JetStar has taken the Prime Minister more often to West Palm Beach, Florida-and that is from the Government's own records-than the JetStar has taken him to Baie Comeau. We on this side of the House have noted that the government JetStar has flown more times with the Prime Minister to West Palm Beach than it has to Baie Comeau or Manicouagan. We are thinking of renaming him the Member for West Palm Beach.
I do not know whether there is some symbolism in that. I do not know whether it is an indication of where the Prime Minister's interest lies. I do not know whether that is an indication of his preference in terms of where he would like to spend his time and with whom.
However, I should like to tell the House the thoughts of those of us who live in large, rural, coastal constituencies like that of the Prime Minister. In fact, the Prime Minister's constituency is right across nine miles of water from mine. We have the great northern peninsula of Newfoundland, nine miles of water, and the north shore of Quebec, and that is the Prime Minister's riding. His riding is nine miles away. One can take a ferry from Newfoundland across to it. It is nine miles away, but 1 have never seen him. Those of us who live in similar constituencies are wondering whether the fact that the JetStar with the Prime Minister aboard goes more often to West Palm Beach than it goes to Baie Comeau or Manicouagan is an indication of where the Prime Minister places the Baie Comeaus of the world on his list of priorities.
One of the reasons the Government is so insensitive to the impact of the Clause 4 user charges, this penalty for living in rural Canada which will be imposed by the Minister of Transport is that cabinet Ministers do not ride VIA Rail any more. They do not ride the buses any more. They do not even deign to put themselves in such a shabby place as the first-class compartment of Air Canada! They do not travel in first-class compartments; they take whole airplanes-get an entire JetStar and fly! While the rest of us are wondering whether Air Canada will land in our riding so that we can have some kind of link, the Prime Minister is taking an L-1011 to Europe. Flying along at a slower pace behind the L-1011, chugging for all its worth and trying to keep pace, is a Hercules aircraft loaded with two trucks and video gear to take pictures of the Prime Minister.


Louis J. Robichaud: Is that what it is for?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, that is what it is for. It is a Hercules aircraft. Mr. Speaker, did you ever see such a brute? It has a big belly. The Prime Minister also has two vans which he keeps on standby here in Ottawa. The door of the aircraft goes up and they drive them aboard. There are seven crewmen and eight technicians, as well as video cameras, audio equipment, light systems, and sound systems, and the Prime Minister goes off to make the latest version of "Bedtime for Bonzo".
The reason this kind of legislation can be introduced is that after 18 months the Government is no longer living in the real world. I know Hon. Members opposite are living in the real world. I know there are Members opposite sitting in the House today who are as concerned as I am about the tendency, not toward presidential-style politics, but toward emperor-style politics. Thank God for the Hercules, in some ways. It is a Trojan Horse for the people of Canada to have a peek at the emperor's entourage and the presidential travelling style of the Prime Minister.
June 12, 1986

We now have some idea about where the Government's mind is. We now have some idea about what is the Government's preoccupation. Its preoccupation is not to manage the country or its problems; its preoccupation is to manage PR. The Government believes that if it can manage PR and can manipulate public opinion, it does not really matter whether the Welland Canal walls are collapsing, the St. Lawrence Seaway is going bankrupt, and jobs are being moved south of the border as traffic leaves the St. Lawrence Seaway. However, we have a great picture of the Prime Minister! With his brand new presidential-style podium, with his brand new seal attached to it, with his brand new backdrop, with his brand new lights, with his brand new vans and Hercules aircraft, and with his brand new video cameras taking a nice picture of the Prime Minister, supposedly everything is fine. When we strip away the lights, the podium, the new presidential seal, and the backdrop, we find that there are problems in the country and everything is not fine.
On the one hand the Government is spending millions making video films of the Prime Minister, they say for posterity. At the same time it is imposing user charges on fishermen, for God's sake, living on the great northern peninsula of Newfoundland. We can be damned sure that the fishermen are not travelling in presidential style. Most of them are moving around in pick-up trucks over dirt roads to inadequate wharfs to try to scrape a living from the sea, from the salt water of the Atlantic, while clinging to the rocks. They do not seem to give a damn that a user fee will be loaded on to their backs in the face of that abuse of taxpayers' dollars for propaganda purposes, a user fee which will wipe them out.
I dare say that if the money spent by the Prime Minister alone to build up his personal entourage had been applied to the Department of Transport, it would not be looking for user-fees. I remember the Prime Minister promising a brand new day for Canada. We were also promised that the fat and out of control massive bureaucracy surrounding Pierre Elliott Trudeau had to go. During the campaign the Prime Minister used to ask: "Can you imagine 60 people in Prime Minister Trudeau's office, all those bureaucrats, and that waste of taxpayers' money? They have to go". However, what did the Prime Minister do? He has 120 people on his payroll. He doubled the number of people on the payroll.
One can draw two conclusions from that. The first would be that Mr. Trudeau's people were twice as bright and twice as good as the Prime Minister's people and therefore the Prime Minister needs twice as many people. However, I do not believe that. I reject that. I do not think Mr. Trudeau's people were twice as productive as those of the Prime Minister. The other conclusion would be that the Prime Minister, too early in his term, before he spent enough time examining the cracks in the Welland Canal, conditions in Atlantic Canada, and the position of the people in his own riding, spent too much time in West Palm Beach, hanging around with all the other megalomaniacs who find it necessary to have a personal entourage chase them around.
Canada Shipping Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Is there a problem?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: A small problem. I just want to raise the question of pertinence with the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). I understand that the Hon. Member ties his remarks to the substance of the Bill. However, to some extent, entertaining a speech on the subject of the PMO versus the Bill for a very extensive or long period of time raises in my mind a question of pertinence. I only raise the issue for the benefit of the Hon. Member, to tell him that I have some problem with it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am glad you raised that point, because it would be inappropriate for me to spend a long period of time pointing out to the people of Canada that if all that money had not been wasted by the Prime Minister, it could have been applied to the Department of Transport, and therefore the Government would not need Clause 4 in Bill C-75. However, I have been watching the clock, and I have not spent a long time making that point. I have only touched upon it for about the last three minutes, and a check of the record by the Speaker will indicate that. I appreciate the Speaker's warning and I appreciate the Speaker's advice. I shall try to remain relevant, as I always do, to the matter before the House, and I hope the Speaker will watch the clock as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Gustafson:: I am sure your constituents are not pleased.


Brian Vincent Tobin: My constituents are extremely pleased that someone is getting up on his hind legs and not allowing this Bill to go through this House without even a whimper, without a sound or a word of protest. It is not my constituents who are not pleased, it is the Hon. Member's constituents who are wondering where he is.
I think Members have heard me list off the hundreds of organizations opposing this Bill. Some of them, I presume, are in ridings of Members opposite. All of those organizations are wondering where Members opposite are. Somebody described them as surfers. Surf in with the tide and surf out. I do not know.
The Inuit Tapirisat and Baffin Island Inuit Association say:
Increased volumes of shipping in the North will create serious environmental problems to this virgin area. Breeding and feeding areas for marine mammals will be disrupted, animals will migrate to other areas and any spill of contaminants will be very difficult to clean up.
The legislation contains nothing to meet the concerns of these native people in Canada's North, nothing.
The organization went on to say:
The technology and capability do not exist to adequately clean up a major oil spill in the Northwest Passage. To further compound the problem, the North is not equipped to deal with such an eventuality and the response time from the South will be such that major damages will already be irreversible.

June 12, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
Let me talk about the North. The Government of Canada's policy with respect to the North is, to say the least, akin to being insane. It is not addressed in this Bill. For the first time in the history of our country the Government of the United States, without asking our permission, without a care for what our feelings are on the subject, sailed the Polar Sea through our territorial waters. That has never happened before. It has only happened since the Government said: "We will always give the Americans the benefit of the doubt". The Americans took advantage of that commitment by the Prime Minister. They said: "Let's go doughtily through the Canadian territorial waters and let us not even bother asking".
What does our Government do? The Government announces to the House that the only reason the Americans went through the Northwest Passage was as a result of the previous administration having left us without a vessel to stop them. Can you imagine the mentality? The only reason the Americans boiled through and churned up our waters is that we did not have the artillery to stop them. On the one hand the Government says that, and on the other hand the Government says that the Americans are our best friends and that we will always give them the benefit of the doubt. You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker. The Americans did not go steaming through our waters because there was not the equipment necessary to stop them. That is not why they went through. The Americans went through because for the first time in decades they saw a Government that claimed at every single step that it would give them the benefit of the doubt. The Americans made a passage through Canada's waters as a way of indicating for future court references that they do not acknowledge our jurisdiction nor our territories.
How do you establish a territory in any kind of a case? You establish it primarily by occupancy, by living in it, occupying it and using it. What does the Government of Canada do to makes its case for sovereignty? Does it assist the people who live in the North because they are our best guarantee of sovereignty? The people who live there call themselves Canadians.


Louis J. Robichaud: They are Canadians.


Brian Vincent Tobin: They are Canadians. Canadians are occupying the North. Therefore we occupy the land. Therefore our case is de facto made. Does the Government say: "We have to assist the people who live in the North? We must not put any more charges on the people in the North", as is being proposed by Clause 4 of the Bill? Does the Government say that? No, Mr. Speaker. The Government says that it is going to penalize people for living in the North.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Make life miserable for them.


Brian Vincent Tobin: That is right, "We are going to make life miserable for the people who live in Canada's North. We are going to charge them to live there". It is going to cost those people more. Then, to handle our sovereignty problem, the Government is going to build a $500 million ice-breaker so
that nobody does anything as a knee-jerk reaction to the American passage of the Polar Sea through our waters.


Louis J. Robichaud: To keep the Americans out.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, to keep the Americans out. The Americans are really shaking in their boots. Would it not be much better to spend the $25 million to dredge the Mackenzie, which runs from Pine Point in the Northwest Territories-yes, it does- and Great Slave Lake straight through to the Beaufort Sea?


Louis J. Robichaud: Tuktoyaktuk.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Tuktoyaktuk, that is right. Would it not be better to spend $25 million there rather than spend $500 million on an ice-breaker? Would that not be much better? It would make the life of that community that much more rewarding. Would it not be better to remove the airport tax on people in the North who do not fly by air because it is a pleasant way to go but because there is no other way to go in the winter? Roads are impassable. Water transportation is frozen. The only way they can move is by air. There is no choice. That is it, and yet we tax those people in the North exactly as we would tax somebody leaving Toronto going to West Palm Beach on holidays. Isn't that ridiculous, Mr. Speaker?
Would it not be much better to say to the people who live in Canada's North that we are going to retain in those isolated communities basic means of transportation? In so far as summer operation is concerned, we should open up the Dempster Highway and upgrade it rather than spend $500 million on an ice-breaker. The Government again is more interested in managing public opinion than in managing the problem, and public opinion demanded that the Prime Minister pound his chest and say "We are going to build a half a million dollar ice-breaker".
We know how the Prime Minister thinks. He takes Hercules aircraft full of audio and video equipment. The Prime Minister must have a Hercules aircraft full of audio and video equipment. Let him go to the Province of Alberta and, if he does not have time to go himself, let the video crew go to Alberta, let them go out on the streets and talk to the people who are suffering from a collapsed world oil price. Let the crew talk to the newly unemployed. If the Prime Minister must have a video crew, a crew and an aircraft at a cost of millions, let them go to Newfoundland to the great northern peninsula. Let them talk to the fishermen who are being told that Clause 4 of this Bill will impose additional charges. If he must have an aircraft, two vans, 15 personnel, audio and video equipment at a cost of millions, let him tell the crew to quit chasing around, go to the great Province of British Columbia where the cedar shakes and shingle workers are now unemployed. If we must have that video equipment crew, if they are going to do some good for the Parliament and the people of Canada, let them travel the country and talk to the softwood lumber workers in every province who fear for their jobs.
June 12, 1986

Is it any wonder that Clause 4 of this Bill has received an overwhelming negative response from almost every single group, except for the Minister himself who has appeared before the legislative committee that examined the whole matter? What did the PEI Potato Marketing Board say about this Bill? It said "Cost recovery will further erode the PEI potato producers in reaching central Canadian markets".
This further erodes the potato farmer's position.
How many Canadians are aware that in PEI today it costs potato farmers more to grow potatoes per pound than what they get per pound when they sell them? Potato farmers are already operating at a deficit. On top of that deficit, along comes the Hercules with video equipment flying the Prime Minister of Canada who is saying "We have Clause 4 of C-75 to load on to to your backs".
In 1986, just before the election, Mr. Lee, the former Premier, said: "If ice-breaking charges for shipping potatoes are added, we could be blown off the map as far as competition is concerned". Those were very prophetic words. The Premier said that if those charges were applied, they could be blown off the map. The first one blown off the map was Premier Lee. There was an election in P.E.I. only a few months ago. The election was held in the middle of the examination of this Bill in the standing committee. The potato farmers of P.E.I. were telling the Government of Canada not to apply those charges because they would go bankrupt. The Premier of P.E.I. agreed but said that those guys in Ottawa are good guys and that the Prime Minister and he were good friends.
The Premier's words were prophetic. He said that if icebreaking charges for shipping potatoes were added they could be blown off the map as far as being competitive is concerned. The Premier was the first victim. He was no longer competitive and was blown off the electoral map. He lost his own seat and lost the election. There is now a new Premier in the Province of P.E.I., Premier Ghiz.
The cost is not only to ordinary Canadians, fishermen, farmers, and employees of the shipping lines which ply the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway. The cost of the Government's policy also applies to its political friends. The former Premier of P.E.I., the Leader of the Conservative Party of P.E.I., is no more. I understand that his only potential for future involvement in political life is to find a seat in the Senate if the Prime Minister finds that he has indeed paid a high price for his allegiance, loyalty to and association with the high-flying, high-spending ways of this country's Prime Minister.
I see that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has come into the House. If he were not bound by cabinet solidarity and an oath of office which says that he cannot criticize the policy of another Minister, if his job would not be put on the line and his head removed from his shoulders for making a comment to
Canada Shipping Act
the contrary, he would be standing in his place today defending the potato farmers of P.E.I. because he knows they are in very serious difficulty. It is only the Minister of Agriculture's oath of office and commitment to toe the line and not break ranks under threat of losing his job that prevents him from throwing down his coffee cup, rushing through the curtains, taking his place and demanding the floor to oppose the dastardly measure which is being imposed upon the farmers of the country by the vicious, cruel, heartless, senseless and stupid provisions of Clause 4 of Bill C-75.
We understand that Ministers would be fired if they spoke out. However, why is it that all the other members of the Conservtive Party have not found their tongues? That is the puzzling thing, Mr. Speaker. Can it be that the several hundreds of representations have only been heard by the Opposition? Can it be that only the New Democratic and Liberal Parties are receiving these letters? Can it be that only we are hearing what is being said in the legislative committee? I do not believe that, Mr. Speaker. I think Members opposite have got the message as well but have not made the choice to rise to their feet and be heard.
The Great Lakes Commission is our co-partner in managing the St. Lawrence Seaway. It is the spokesman for the American states involved. At the annual meeting in Ann Arbour, Michigan, it was said: "If user fees are established for the use of Canadian federal navigation facilities, consideration should be given to the elimination of all Seaway tolls". The Government has gone in the opposite direction. It has raised tolls on the Welland Canal.
They went on to say: "When user fees are implemented, some current business is always lost and some new business would then have to be developed. It is our clear preference, based on our own experience with the U.S. government agencies, that the limits of authority be spelled out in legislative language in the original Bill rather than being left to administrative agencies of the Government for final determination". That is a crucial representation. It is their preference that the limits of authority be spelled out in legislative language in the original Bill rather than being left to administrative agencies of the Government for final determination.
They are saying that if the Minister must have this ability to raise fees and charge user fees, then let the Minister tell all users of Government services in advance what those fees are going to be. Let the Minister not expect to have a loaded shotgun in his hand and tell us later on whom that gun is targeted.
The St. Lawrence River Economic Development Group said: "We think it would be dangerous to pass Clause 4 until the main parties involved are aware of its impact". They also say that the threat of additional fees is causing a growing concern among our neighbours and partners to the south. Given that we are about to begin lengthy negotiations on enhanced trade between Canada and the United States, there is a definite danger that the restriction on marine transportation could be misinterpreted. The St. Lawrence Seaway system is jointly

June 12, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
owned and managed by Canadian and American authorities. If we cannot even get our act together to run the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, how in the name of heaven can we possibly be expected to conduct free trade negotiations?
The Corporation of the City of Thunder Bay, Ontario, says that the St. Lawrence Seaway is already the only North American system which charges user fees. They say that it seems strange that the Government would propose changes which could put Canada in a less competitive position rather than offer the opportunity for Canada to trade more vigorously. They concluded their submission by saying that Clause 4 is totally counterproductive.
Clause 4 represents the first occasion in 26 years of operations that the Governments of Canada and the United States have not agreed on a joint action. It has been 26 years since the $450 million St. Lawrence Seaway was completed and we initiated the joint operation of that Seaway. In all of those 26 years the Governments of Canada and the United States have consulted and reached consensus on how the Seaway is to be operated. In all those years there has always been agreement on what services are to be provided and what charges are to be applied. This is the first time in 26 years that the Government has sought to apply new charges and impose fees which were not arrived at by consensus between the Canadian and U.S. authorities which jointly manage the St. Lawrence Seaway.
I find that regrettable. Quite honestly, I find it hard to understand in the face of the fact that the Prime Minister and the Government believe they can negotiate a comprehensive trade treaty when they have now clearly illustrated that they cannot even jointly manage the Seaway Authority which, for the past 26 years, has operated on a consensus basis.
The National Farmers Union says that Clause 4 will see charges passed on to farmers already strapped with a mountain of added costs. That has to be an understatement. The selling price of wheat is the lowest it has been in 60 years. Grain farmers in western Canada find themselves, as does the Government, caught in the squeeze of a trade war between the U.S. and western Europe. They are caught between the squeeze of the subsidies proposed by the U.S. Farm Bill and the tremendous subsidies being paid by the EEC to its member states and their farmers. Farmers in this country are in such a difficult position that an all-Party parliamentary committee of this House recently recommended that the price of wheat products be raised, that Canadians contribute something to our farmers by paying more for bread and pasta. On the one hand the Government asks Canadians to pay more to assist our farmers, and on the other hand it imposes through Clause 4 of Bill C-75, additional charges on farmers. One hand of this Government does not know what the other hand is doing. What would be more tragic than that one hand does know what the other hand is doing?
We see more evidence of the fact that we have a Government much more interested in managing perception, public
reaction, and manipulating public opinion, than in managing the problems confronting our people. We spend far too much time in this Chamber discussing the sexy items which make the front page of The Globe and Mail, the controversial, slam-bang, exciting items which cause an uproar in this House, and far too little time debating matters affecting our citizens in their towns, regions and provinces. The people of this country, be they a prairie farmer, a sailor on the Great Lakes, a potato farmer in Prince Edward Island, or a fisherman in Port au Choix, Newfoundland, have unanimously said to the Government that Clause 4 of Bill C-75 is going to break their backs. It will be the clause that kills the goose that lays the golden
egg-
This clause is an attack on the primary producer of this country. It is an attack on the people who work the land or the sea. It is an attack on the farmers who preserve, protect and enhance the bread-basket of this country. It is an attack on the men who go into our forest lands to cut the trees. It is an attack on those who go into the mines and bring ore to the surface. It is an attack on the primary producer who lives in the regions of this country. It will impose a tax on them for being the primary producer.
It is time that we in this place remembered that the money used to build the great cities of Canada and the palatial surroundings in which we find ourselves here, is not generated on Bay Street. It is not generated in the Vancouver, Toronto or Montreal stock exchanges. The money used to build our highways and create our cities is generated by the primary producer, the fisherman, forester, farmer and miner. What is speculated on in the stock exchanges is our forestry resources, our food and fish. The primary producer is the engine that moves this country. The health and welfare of the primary producer will ultimately decide the health and welfare of all of us who live in urban areas. I live in suburbia. It has nice streets, paved roads, lovely sidewalks and a beautiful little park in the back. I know that the engine which drives this country is not in the House of Commons. The House of Commons, by imposing this tax on the primary producer, becomes like the tail that wants to wag the dog. The House and the Government should remember that the tail that attempts to wag the dog will find some pretty strong and vicious teeth buried in it. The Government is destroying an important part of the mosaic that is this country.
I have spoken only briefly on Clause 4 and I want to come back to that. There is a second reason why this Bill has failed. It has to do with the failure of the Government to recognize the major recommendation of a royal commission, jointly sponsored, funded and administered by the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland. On February 18, 1982, an oil rig 200 miles offshore called the Ocean Ranger went to the bottom in an Atlantic storm. Of the 84 lives lost, more than 60 were Canadian, and almost all of those were Newfoundlanders. The two Governments realized that they had to find a better way of ensuring the safety of our workers at sea. Again, these are the primary producers. The people on
June 12, 1986

those rigs, taking those risks, are primary producers. On February 18, 1982, disaster struck. The Ocean Ranger went down, every man was lost, and Governments jointly decided we had to find out why this unsinkable rig, the Ocean Ranger, went down. What happened? The Government appointed a royal commission jointly funded by both the Government of Newfoundland and the Government of Canada. That royal commission spent $15 million over three years and it travelled the length and breadth of the globe and of the country examining the operation of rigs in the offshore, examining the training systems, examining the management systems, trying to make a determination about how we could improve the operation of rigs in our offshore, how we could prevent, as civilized people, another disaster in our offshore. It examined how we, as parliamentarians, could offer our citizens at sea, those primary producers extracting that resource, that energy means from the ocean, a safe system in what is obviously a very dangerous occupation.
We knew, and the people who go out to sea in the rigs know that there are never any guarantees of safety. They know when you put men and equipment up against the North Atlantic that there is never any guarantee. They know that their lives are always at risk, even as we speak today and six rigs are operating off the East Coast of Canada.
In so far as the risk exists, we understand we have a responsibility to give them the best possible equipment and systems available to prevent disaster, and in the event of disaster, to ensure that rescue can be carried out. So the royal commission was appointed. It did its job. It spent $15 million and it made recommendations to the Government of Canada and to the Government of Newfoundland as to what should happen to prevent another such disaster.
Members should know that one of the major recommendation, if not the major recommendation, of the royal commission, was that when next the Canada Shipping Act, which is the Act we are dealing with today, was examined before Parliament, examined before the Standing Committee of Transport, oil rigs should be brought under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport and should be included under the regulations provided for in the Canada Shipping Act.
Canadians would be amazed to know that while a barge with no people aboard which floats down the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes, or is used to dump garbage, is included in the Canada Shipping Act and, therefore, is subject to all the regulations of the Canada Shipping Act, an oil rig with 100 people aboard is not. I think the people of Canada would be interested in knowing that a crane that would operate on the waterfront doing repairs would be included and subject to all the provisions of the Canada Shipping Act, but an oil rig is not.
The royal commission said that one of the main causes of the disaster and the reason for the loss of 84 men, 69 Canadians, 56 Newfoundlanders, according to the Ocean Ranger
Canada Shipping Act
report completed in August of 84, was a breakdown of the command structure in the final hours preceding the sinking of the oil rig. The main contributing factor to this breakdown was the fact that the captain, who commands the oil rig when the rig and crew are in danger, did not have the proper qualifications to avoid what transpired.
In other words, all those vessels that are covered under the Canada Shipping Act that navigate the oceans of Canada must have a command structure as laid down by the Canada Shipping Act. They must have qualified, certified personnel as laid down by the Canada Shipping Act, but an oil rig continues to be under the of the Minister of Energy.
As I touched on yesterday, what is tragic about the exclusion of oil rigs and the lack of an acknowledgement of the recommendation of the royal commission in this Bill is that there is not a Member of this House in good conscience who does not believe that oil rigs should be brought under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Transport believes that, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Forrestall) believes that, every Member that I know from an oil-producing region believes that, regardless of Party, but still it has not happened. It has not happened despite the will of Parliament, it has not happened despite the will of a royal commission.
I suppose we spent that $15 million for some serious reason. I suppose that generally when we have people study a matter for three years, we take their advice seriously. I suppose we are not arrogant enough to second guess a group of experts who have spent three years of their lives dedicated to one task. Despite all of that, no jurisdiction over oil rigs is mentioned in Bill C-75.
Why is that? It is because there is in this place a disposition toward empire building. It is because, for the moment, oil rigs rest under the jurisdiction of the Minister of Energy (Miss Carney). They are part of her kingdom. I said that this place is a little bit like Rome, but it is a very competitive Rome, there are 40 Caesars, 40 Ministers of the Cabinet, more than ever before in the history of this country. It is the largest single Cabinet in Canada's history. We have a Minister of Energy who has decided that every part of the energy patch, in so far as Government is concerned, shall be under her jurisdiction. We have a Minister of Energy who has said to the Minister of Transport that he can sit on the joint committee and consult with her on how she manages the operation of those rigs in the offshore, but notwithstanding the recommendations of a royal commission that spent $15 million, she shall retain the ultimate authority. She is not going to give it up to the Minister of Transport no matter how logical, no matter how much advice she received, no matter what the will of Parliament.
Frankly, I Find that tragic. The reality is that even though improvements have been made in the operation of rigs off the East Coast of this country, some of the very same systems that were in place on the night of February 18, 1982 when the Ocean Ranger went down and 84 lives were lost, are in place

June 12, 1986
Canada Shipping Act
today. It has not changed. We still do not have qualified captains on the rigs. The Parliamentary Secretary would know that. They are still not required under law to have a qualified captain on those rigs. We still do not have an escape mechanism off those rigs that are any better than the life capsules that dangle over the side that were in place in 1982 and did not do the job at that time. We still have no clear chain of command established in the event of an emergency on those rigs, as could be qualified and outlined under the provisions of Bill C-75, the Canada Shipping Act.
The Government of Canada has failed, despite the private feelings of the Minister, despite the private feelings of his Parliamentary Secretary, despite the private feelings of this Department, despite the advice of a royal commission the not only to do what is proper, but to do what is right.
It has failed to do not only what is desirable but to do what is responsible. It has failed to do it because of a political fight between two Ministers as to who is going to have jurisdiction over oil rigs, because of the narrow and petty view of a Minister of Energy that because she is Minister of Energy she shall control oil rigs because they are looking for oil. That is so even though the Department of Energy has no expertise in transportation matters, has no expertise in shipping matters, and has no ability to deal in an intelligent manner with the people who are out operating those rigs and the companies that operate them. That is tragic. It is a sad commentary on the Parliament of Canada when we cannot put aside such petty internal bickering and partisanship in order to avoid this problem.
I moved a series of three amendments before the legislative committee that would have allowed Members of Parliament, if they had the courage and intestinal fortitude, to resolve the bickering between the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I understand the position in which the Minister of Transport finds himself. He does not want to demand unilaterally that the Minister of Energy give up her jurisdiction over rigs. The effect of the three motions which I moved in committee would have been to transfer to the Minister of Transport, through legislation, exclusive jurisdiction over rigs operating in the offshore. The Conservative Members who were present at that committee meeting simply had to follow their consciences and examine their souls. They simply had to follow their instincts and support those amendments which would have resulted in a Bill before Parliament today that would have included jurisdiction by the Minister of Transport over rigs operating in the offshore. However, even though those Members knew that the measure I proposed was indeed the correct one, they voted against it.
Let me state for the record that the New Democratic Party Members who were present at the committee meeting voted for those amendments to protect the best interests of the men and women who go 200 miles out to sea on Canada's North Atlantic to risk life and limb not only in pursuit of a salary but
in pursuit of an energy resource that will improve the lot of the whole country. Some Members voted to improve their lot and ensure that we give them the best technology available, the best training system available and the best chance of survival if and when something goes wrong with those rigs offshore.
I was disappointed that my colleagues in the Progessive Conservative Party who I know share my view privately did not take the opportunity to support my amendment. I was disappointed that they did not take the opportunity to take that petty debate out of the hands of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Energy and resolve that dispute, not in the interests of either Minister, but in the interests of the people who work on Canada's offshore rigs. That did not happen.
I hope that during the course of this debate those Members who are present will examine whether the words of the people of Canada which I have quoted today are meaningful, irrespective of what the Minister of Transport or the Government of Canada want. I hope they will ask themselves whether the opinion of the farmers on the Prairies with respect to this Bill is worth anything; whether the opinion of the fishermen of Atlantic Canada and the British Columbia coast on this Bill is worth anything; whether the opinion of those workers in Canada's forest industry worth anything, whether the words of those people who are employed in connection with Canada's Great Lakes and the Seaway mean anything with respect to this Bill.
I am merely echoing those words on behalf of those who have spoken against this Bill and Clause 4. Members of Parliament will have an opportunity to stand up and be counted and show if those words mean anything.
It is a debate such as this which will ultimately determine whether or not the fragile seed of reform that has been planted in this place has borne any fruit. This is the type of issue that will determine the credibility of our view that the role of Members of Parliament should evolve so that they can speak their mind and exercise an independent will on matters that are important to the country.
It was a debate like this that Gordon Bradley, the first Newfoundland cabinet Minister after the 1949 referendum debate, talked about. He was addressing the Newfoundland Assembly which was called together to examine whether Newfoundland should join the Confederation or seek union with the United States. There arose on the floor a clatter, a commotion and loud noises of disagreement, personal namecalling and incoherent debate. Bradley was the Chairman of the convention in 1948. He was a large man who commanded the respect of the House. He rose to his full height and the House fell silent. He said to those delegates who were trying to decide the future of the then country of Newfoundland: "Gentlemen, I remind you, the eyes of the people of Newfoundland are upon you now. They are awaiting your every word, they are watching your every action, and sometimes I fear you try their patience too far".
June 12, 1986

Canadians do not want us to deal only with the items on the front page of The Globe and Mail, God bless them. Canadians do not want us to deal only with the items that appear in a 32 second blip of The National on the CBC every night, God bless them. Canadians want us to deal with more than just the items that appear on page 3 of The Toronto Sun or The Toronto Star. Canadians want us to deal with the kinds of measures that affect how they live and where they live in the provinces and regions of Canada.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the Hon. Member might indulge me, since I missed the beginning of his speech, and go over a few of the points which he made.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, that is not a point of order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the member of the New Democratic Party who just spoke has indicated the problem with his Party. It is a Party that believes there is a point in every direction. Of course, everyone knows that a point in every direction is no point at all. I will be glad, over the course of the next 20 or 30 hours in which I intend to be here, to review my comments from earlier today, as long as the Speaker says that I am not repetitive.
Canadians want this Parliament to deal with more than just the flashy, sexy and exciting items that tend to preoccupy Parliament. They want us to deal also with those issues that affect them where they live.
I suggest that Clause 4 of Bill C-75 is an attack on the primary producers of this country, whether they are fishermen, farmers, forestry workers, mine workers or the people who work on a rig 200 miles offshore. All of those people who collectively represent the engine that drives the economy of this country are under attack by a Bill that would impose upon them and their livelihood additional charges for services that historically are a right of the citizens of this country.
[DOT] (MOO)



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, Friedrich Industries in Toronto sent us a letter stating that it has just been hit again by Revenue Canada. The company offered Revenue Canada $40,000 downpayment on its debt on April 17, 1986. On April 18 Revenue Canada sent out third party demand notes to all customers of Friedrich Industries. On April 23 Irving Bank put Friedrich Industries into receivership because of Revenue Canada. On May 2, 175 persons were laid off because of Revenue Canada. With 175
people at a minimum of $200 a week collecting unemployment insurance benefits, it will cost the Government $35,000 per week.
Revenue Canada should take a positive approach and negotiate with companies to solve problems and not be totally destructive-


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



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, representatives of the West Coast shipbuilding industry brought their concerns about rising unemployment in the shipyards to Ottawa yesterday. Canadian shipbuilders find themselves largely dependent these days on Government contracts, many let by the previous Liberal Government. The West Coast representatives are keenly aware that these Government contracts will keep the large East Coast and St. Lawrence yards busy over the next few years.
All of the shipbuilders have been bitterly disappointed by the Mulroney Government's failure to implement election promises to the shipbuilding industry that would produce commercial orders. The only hope of the large yards is Government contracts. Management and the workers are sure that the Polar 8 contract is ready to be let. They ask that this contract be let to the West Coast yard that put in the best bid to build this flagship for our northern Arctic fleet.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, as the House draws closer to its summer recess and parliamentarians return to their constituencies, I call upon each Member of Parliament to reflect upon his or her responsibility as individuals to respect the traditions of Parliament. I ask that we, in all seriousness and with sincerity, reassess our respective motives for seeking elected office, our response to the privilege of being elected to this House and, indeed, our actions in representing our constituents.
We were elected to show leadership, to give direction, and to act with maturity. If we continue to demonstrate our lack of respect for the parliamentary process and the traditions of Parliament, we cannot hope to command respect from each other as colleagues, from our constituents or, indeed, command respect for Canada in the eyes of other nations.
14292_____________________________COMMONS DEBATES_________________________ June 12, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!	[DOT] <1405)



COMMUNICATIONS


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, as a woman and a Government Member, I am very proud today to lay special emphasis on the program prepared by the Minister for External Relations (Mrs. Vezina) and designed to allocate $25 million to women in Third World countries.
For us Canadians, acknowledging the socio-economic role of women in Third World countries has to be an international first, because never before did a co-operating country make women direct beneficiaries of its programs.
Henceforth, Mr. Speaker, all women, including those of the Third World, will be acting as consultants and planners with respect to agency management and planning systems, training programs and scholarships, staff training and data collecting in non-governmental or multilateral organizations.
Mr. Speaker, our Government has just honoured another one of its election commitments by ensuring that women will indeed have equal opportunities.



CHALLENGE '86 FUNDING OF SUMMER JOB PROGRAMS FOR STUDENTS

Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, the Government claims it is creating meaningful, career-related summer jobs by targeting funds to the private sector rather than to not-for-profit organizations. However, the Government's own evaluation of last summer's SEED Program showed that only a quarter of the jobs created in the private sector were administrative or professional jobs as compared to three-quarters in the not-for-profit sector.
Under the previous Government, students received valuable experience and acquired organizational and managerial skills by administering and delivering programs of value to the community neighbourhood improvement projects, community outreach, children's programs and so on.
Given the resources, the not-for-profit sector can offer relevant, career-related summer jobs, while at the same time providing necessary community services. While the business sector can and should have a role in summer job creation, it should not be at the expense of community organizations and the services they provide.



LAYING OF SECOND FIBRE OPTIC CABLE BETWEEN NORTH AMERICA AND EUROPE

Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, the news that an international telecommunications consortium, of which Teleglobe Canada is a prominent member, plans to lay a second submarine fibre optic cable linking Canada and the U.S.A. to Britain, Spain, and France augurs well for the future of this nation. Canada excels in telecommunications technology, and it is only right that we participate fully in these latest developments.
The Tat-9 cable ought to be in operation in 1991. Unlike the earlier Tat-8 system, it will have a Canadian landfall. The new trans-Atlantic cable will be fully compatible with the worldwide telecommunications standard termed the Integrated Digital Services Network.
Canada is truly becoming "plugged in" to the new world of communications.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Alleluia, Mr. Speaker! President Reagan has seen the light. The President sang a new tune on arms control at yesterday's press conference, in sharp contrast to his May 27 abandonment of SALT II. The President recognized new Soviet proposals for arms reduction and held out hope that an agreement might be possible with General Secretary Gorbachev.
Why this sudden change of heart? It might have something to do with the blast of hot air that greeted the Americans at Halifax. NATO Ministers gave the message loud and clear: they want both superpowers to remain committed to SALT II. This was a refreshing change, and one that brought positive results. The U.S. is interested again in arms control, and the Soviets have made new proposals at Geneva.
Those who dither about "alliance solidarity" should take note. There is no reason to support an unwise policy just because the Americans announce it. A good ally gives sound advice, even if it means disagreement with a superpower.



SPINA BIFIDA AND HYDROCEPHALUS WEEK

Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, June 8 to 15 is Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Week in
June 12, 1986

Canada. As the second most common birth defect in North America spina bifida is often a crippling condition. There is no cure, and parents of spina bifida children are often left with the task of caring for their children without the needed and necessary information.
For nearly 15 years the Spina Bifida and Hydrocephalus Assocation of Ontario has been helping Canadians gain a better understanding of this serious condition. Through information brochures, fund-raising events, and needed personal contacts, the association is helping focus our attention on the needs of people with spina bifida.
I urge all Members to participate in and to support the Spina Bifida Assocation's efforts. We may not find a cure, but-


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



CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION CONDEMNATION OF LIQUOR ADVERTISING POLICY

Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, the CRTC's policy of allowing liquor companies to regulate themselves flies in the face of what the Government is trying to do to change attitudes about excessive drinking.
Last year the federal Government passed strong new laws to fight impaired driving, but that action will solve only part of the problems. If the problems which stem from excessive drinking are to be solved, then attitudinal changes will be needed. But how will that occur when the advertising of liquor companies implies that drinking leads only to a rich, fun-filled life?
I am especially concerned about the influence of these ads on young people, since the average teen-ager spends about three hours in front of the television every day. This advertising has to have some impact on their attitudes.
Selling liquor is a business, and advertising is intended to boost sales. Therefore I do not think that we should trust liquor companies to control the messages which young people receive about alcohol.



TARIFF ON BOOK IMPORTS

Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, cultural industries have become a bargaining chip in free trade
negotiations. The action of the Government in resurrecting the tariff on American and other English language foreign books has put cultural industries on the agenda-as the first item. This breaks Government promises about protecting our cultural industries.
This unfair, discriminatory and ill-conceived policy has been complicated by the fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) have contradicted each other on where the tariffs apply-French, English, which language books?
Will the Prime Minister address this issue with U.S. VicePresident George Bush? This regressive tariff which applies to all Canada's trading partners should be rescinded. Why is this tariff being imposed upon countries with which Canada has no bone to pick?
The tariff which applies to all Canada's trading partners will affect Canadian companies that import, market, and distribute foreign books to the Canadian public-essential revenue to support Canadian readers, writers and printers.
It seems that the only link between shakes, shingles, and books is wood. All in all, it seems that the Government cannot see the forest for the tariff on the trees. The irony is that we used to have free trade.



CANADIAN YOUTH FOUNDATION-GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE

Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne) announced that $1 million will be spent to help set up the new Canadian Youth Foundation.
The Foundation, sponsored by the Canadian Council on Children and Youth, will give young Canadians a chance to study and analyze national questions and policies by which they are directly affected and to share their findings with other young people and the agencies concerned in this country.
Mr. Speaker, this is one more example of the Government's abiding interest in our youth. The Foundation is particularly important because it works according to the concept "By and for youth".
Mr. Speaker, our Government has once more demonstrated its firm belief that our country's youth is its most precious resource and that it is everybody's concern.

June 12, 1986



ABORTION


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has reached a new low in labour relations with its employees. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the various sectors of marine workers have been negotiating with the Government for a balanced agreement between East and West.
Last weekend, in order to thwart the legitimate rights of the union to hold meetings with its members, the Government, through its agencies, ordered vessels out to sea, and in some cases out to the harbour to be tied up. I call on the Government to change its approach, to accept the conciliation report the union has accepted, and to allow work to continue and workers to get a fair wage.



OPPOSITION TO USE AS MEANS OF CONTRACEPTION

Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in most of the disagreements and arguments that have taken place between pro-lifers and pro-abortionists the focal point has been the issue of contraception. I have said before and I say again that proper birth control methods must be made readily available to all, and sex education must be taught in such a way as to make all people understand those methods.
Money can and should be spent on the sex education of all people, not just those attending high school or college. Once that is done people will be able to make choices concerning the birth of children. As it now stands, abortion is becoming a means of contraception.
For those who do not want children, contraception is proper and necessary. However, once a life has begun it has the God-given right to reach its natural end. That life has the same right to protection under the law as its mother or any other in society.



FINANCE


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, according to the Public Accounts of Canada, during the last fiscal year the Government, by its own admission, gave a special benefit to hundreds of Canadian taxpayers by cancelling over $882 million in taxes. The Dome remission order is but one example of this.
The Financial Administration Act authorizes the Government to cancel taxes owing if it is in the public interest. However, the reports on which the Government bases its decisions to cancel taxes are cabinet confidences, secret documents that are not made public. This practice has tremendous potential for abuse.
One person's taxes may be cancelled but mine may not. Perhaps it is reasonable that that person's taxes be cancelled, but perhaps someone likes that person and does not like me. We do not know. The reason is a secret. This has been going on for years and years under many Governments, but it is completely unacceptable. The Government must make this information public.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding to Question Period, I have received a letter and I believe it is in the interests of the House that I read the letter to the House in its entirety. It is from the Hon. Member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Suluk), and reads as follows:
Eskimo Point
June 12, 1986
Dear Mr. Speaker:
I am writing in response to what I have learned respecting an incident in the House of Commons on June 11, 1986, concerning a racial slur committed by myself to another Member of the House of Commons.
There seems to be a misunderstanding concerning the unequivocal apology made by me on March 5, 1986.
Being a member of a minority group in Canada, I have experienced discrimination throughout my life. I understand that my statement of March 5 was referred to in the House of Commons yesterday and that my apology was viewed by some Honourable Members as less than unequivocal.
Since I am unable to be in the House of Commons personally to make any clarification, I would like to inform the House, through you, that the statement made on March 5, was intended by me to be an unequivocal apology. If doubts remain I would like now to remove them by asking you to convey to Members of the House of Commons my unequivocal apology.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Rossi:: I would simply like to thank you, Mr. Speaker.
June 12, 1986



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and arises out of his statement on South Africa this morning. We have checked with the Minister's own officials and they have affirmed that the value of Canadian government purchases from South Africa is less than $1 million. The banned South African attaches already live in the United States, and obviously the ban on promotion of South African tourism is economically meaningless. The measures do not touch our $230 million in imports from South Africa, nor do they touch our $ 150 million in exports to South Africa, nor do they touch Canadian investment in that country.
Given today's state of emergency in South Africa, why has the Canadian Government failed to announce any measures of substance and just engaged in what we might term hollow gestures?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am rather surprised to hear that characterization by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, particularly in light of the response by his Party to my earlier statement in the House of Commons. There is no question that the wider range of economic measures and indeed other measures which Canada might wish to take against apartheid remain to be taken. We have indicated quite clearly that if necessary we will take them.
I believe it was the Hon. Member for New Westminster- Coquitlam who indicated in her response earlier today on behalf of the New Democratic Party that this Government, unlike predecessor Governments, is acting consistently and strongly to try to bring an end to apartheid and to try to play our role in a way which advances international institutions like the Commonwealth.


SITUATION IN SOUTH AFRICA
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Mr. Speaker, the action taken by the Government of Canada today does not reflect the fairly strong statement made by the Prime Minister before the United Nations a few months ago. Why should the Commonwealth Heads of State wait until August to hold their meeting? Why this constant postponing of concrete action and economic sanctions against South Africa, and why not act now, as Bishop Tutu suggested to the Minister and this country during his recent visit?
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Government and the Prime Minister of Canada are doing a lot more than just making strong statements to the United Nations. We have taken on a leadership role, both here and within the Commonwealth, with the Nassau Accord. The Prime Minister of Canada intends to continue this work, and that is why he called Prime Minister Hawke of Australia last night, and he will be in touch with Mr. Gandhi to continue the co-operation that proved so effective in Nassau. As for the meeting in London scheduled in August, we made enquiries to find out whether it was possible to change the date. However, the Commonwealth Secretariat replied that this was not feasible. And that is why Canada intends to be there and the Prime Minister will be there to pursue the leadership role taken by Canada against apartheid.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think Canadian people are expecting more from the Government at this stage, now that the Eminent Persons Group has not succeeded; we are awaiting something more than hollow gestures. Why is it that the diplomatic process in which we are engaged allows more and more months to go by and more and more lives to be lost in South Africa? What are the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister doing to impress upon our friends in Great Britain, the United States, and West Germany to come along with the rest of the world and impose sanctions on South Africa?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as one former Prime Minister of Canada I can say to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that the present Prime Minister of Canada is doing far more to end apartheid than any of his predecessors, with the exception of the Late Right Hon. John Diefenbaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR MANDATORY MEASURES
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Several months ago the Government introduced a voluntary ban on the sale of krugerrand gold coins in Canada, a voluntary ban on new loans to the Government of South Africa and its agencies, a voluntary ban on the sale of crude oil and refined products, and strengthened the voluntary code of conduct for Canadian companies in South Africa. Considering the continued resistance of the South African Government to any meaningful change, will the Government now consider making these voluntary measures mandatory?
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in some cases that would not be

June 12, 1986
Oral Questions
necessary. For example, with regard to krugerrands the voluntary measures that were introduced by the Government of Canada have proven to be 100 per cent effective. With regard to the other question, the Hon. Member who has, I know, a genuine interest in this matter, asked if we would consider it. Yes, we will consider it. We will consider it along with other measures. We will consider it along with our partners in the Commonwealth, and we will consider it always against the standard of what will continue to be the most effective way for Canada to help bring an end to the evil of apartheid.


PREPARATIONS FOR COMMONWEALTH MEETING IN AUGUST
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East):: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister tell the House what instructions are being given to Bernard Wood who, I understand, will travel immediately to meet representatives of other Commonwealth countries to prepare for the meeting in August? Will the Government instruct Bernard Wood to ask of other Commonwealth countries that there be a ban on all new investment in South Africa and a ban on South African air landing rights in all Commonwealth countries?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the exact date of departure for Mr. Wood has not yet been established. I am sure Hon. Members in the House will share the appreciation of the Government that Mr. Wood has agreed to undertake this further task. He will be visiting Zimbabwe and Zambia. We will announce other countries and leaders that he will be visiiing as that is confirmed, and the exact terms of instruction will be clarified as he leaves. The point that we want Mr. Wood to convey is that Canada believes that, while the unity of the Commonwealth is very important at all times, in this instance what Canada is seeking from the Commonwealth is a combination of unity and forward movement against apartheid.


DECLARATION OF STATE OF EMERGENCY IN SOUTH AFRICA
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Secretary of State for External Affairs who I do believe, on behalf of the Canadian Government, has taken steps far greater than previous Governments ever did.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: In the Minister's statement this morning there was no sense of urgency even though since report of the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group came down a brutal state of emergency has been declared in South Africa. The South African Government has absolutely ignored the report, slighted the Eminent Persons Group, and instituted a state of emergency.
In light of the developments yesterday and today in South Africa, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs now consider whether to extend his statement of this morning to bring about full economic sanctions?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, those actions in South Africa were brutal and they were wrong. They add one more indication of the intransigence of the Government of South Africa. The question of the Hon. Member is whether we will extend that statement now. The answer to that briefly is, no, we will not extend it now. We want to see if we can work with other members of the Commonwealth and other countries some of whom, in the nature of things because of the size of their trade, have a greater impact on South Africa than we might have alone. We want to see if we can continue to use the good offices and the leadership of Canada, demonstrating our willingness to move to cause others to move, so that instead of simply expressing our outrage we may be able to achieve change in an evil system.


TIMING OF COMMONWEALTH MEETING
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary General of the Commonwealth in the Foreword to the Commonwealth Eminent Persons Group Report said:
-"sanctions and peace for South Africa have now become one and the same."
Since the Government has already taken some initiatives would it at least, for example, ban all agricultural imports, which constitute about half of our imports from South Africa? Since the Secretary General says the meeting of the Group of Seven cannot be brought forward, would the Government take the initiative of having the Group of Seven meet within the next two weeks, preferably in London?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am assuming that the difficulty which the Commonwealth Secretariat reported had to do with the schedules of seven busy Leaders of Governments and that it was not at all an unwillingness on the part of the Commonwealth Secretariat to convene the meeting. I doubt that it would be possible for anyone else to convene more quickly a meeting which Mr. Ramphal believes cannot be convened before early August.
I make the point through you, Mr. Speaker, to the House that while the Secretary General used the word "sanctions" the eminent persons themselves were very careful to use the language "economic measures". I think that might have been part of the reason the report was unanimous. I think it very important that the report was unanimous and signed by, among others, Lord Barber, the British representative.


AGRICULTURAL IMPORTS-REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MEET BRITISH PRIME MINISTER
Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister would also address the agricultural imports question. If the Group of Seven cannot get together, would the Prime Minister consider taking the initiative, rather than waiting until the Prime Minister of
June 12, 1986

Britain is at Expo and then incidentally chatting with her, of going to London to meet with the Prime Minister of Britain now?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the question of agricultural trade is, of course, a matter which the Government will consider along with other Commonwealth countries as this process evolves.
The Prime Minister of Canada has already phoned Prime Minister Kaunda, when there was a threat that Prime Minister Kaunda might be thinking of precipitously leaving the Commonwealth. He has already phoned Prime Minister Hawke of Australia. He is seeking contact as quickly as possible with Prime Minister Gandhi. We want to be sure that the co-operation and partnership which worked so effectively at Nassau is able to be mobilized to work effectively for the August meeting. That is the urgent purpose of the Prime Minister of Canada and he has already embarked upon it.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. On whose authority did his Parliamentary Secretary make threatening phone calls, even at 1 a.m., to federal meat inspectors regarding the dispute at the Peter Pocklington plant in Red Deer, Alberta?


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knew when she posed the question, this was not done in the capacity of Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General.


REQUEST FOR RESIGNATION OF PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY
Sheila Maureen Copps: There is currently an RCMP investigation into the possibility of intimidation under Section 381 of the Criminal Code. Would the Solicitor General agree that the immediate resignation of his Parliamentary Secretary should be required until this issue has been resolved?


Henry Perrin Beatty: No, Mr. Speaker.
_____________________________14297
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


PRICE OF WHEAT
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to either the Minister of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Agriculture, whichever is responsible for international farm pricing policy. We are now members of the Group of Seven under which American farmers will get approximately $6 Canadian, Europeans will get about $8 Canadian, and the Japanese will get more than $20 Canadian for a bushel of wheat. There are relative prices for other grain commodities. At the same time we are getting about $3 Canadian for a bushel of wheat.
What point is the Government trying to make with this domestic farm pricing policy? Is it trying to show that we are underdeveloped in relation to the other G-7 countries?


John Wise: The obvious answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, is a very definite no. The Hon. Member should realize that we are fully aware of the very difficult situation which exists in Canadian agriculture today. He will know we have taken a number of initiatives, the latest being as of April 30. At the moment we continue to monitor the situation which remains serious. In fact it is even deteriorating. We are looking at a number of options the Government might choose.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE NEGOTIATIONS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Agriculture recently met with the Secretary of Agriculture and decided that all agricultural products would be on the table in the free trade discussions, does that mean Canada will gradually shift to farm gate prices of $6 per bushel Canadian to be equivalent to the Americans, or are they going to be coming down to the $3 we have to put up with?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member wants to be accurate and honest with the farm community, he will know we do not have the option of maintaining the status quo. He will know that 50 per cent of Canadian farm income is from export sales. He will know that if we exclude the sale of grain and oilseeds, two-thirds of Canadian farm exports flow to the U.S. He will know we cannot maintain a strong and viable agricultural industry with a market of 24 million Canadians alone. He will know it is of vital importance that we have guaranteed access to the U.S. market.

June 12, 1986
14298___________________________
Oral Questions REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION


MODERNIZATION OF SYDNEY STEEL CORPORATION
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. The President of the Treasury Board has written to me to confirm that a proposal for funds for the second phase of the modernization of Sydney Steel Corporation has not come before Treasury Board. He also states that before it does, "some outstanding matters must be resolved". Nova Scotians want to know exactly what those outstanding matters are.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question and bring it to the attention of the President of the Treasury Board who, I am sure, will provide a detailed response to him.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I want the Deputy Prime Minister to take note of this as well.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In the context of a "take note" answer like that, I think I have to go to the next Member.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The special committee on domestic wheat pricing recognized that even if the Government established a price for domestic wheat it would not solve the income problem of farmers. An additional $3 per bushel will affect only about 1 per cent of total commodity prices. The committee recommended a deficiency payment. Will the Minister accept that recommendation?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I have received three or four questions on this matter, perhaps two or three from the Hon. Member. I have indicated in the House and across the country that a deficiency payment would be one of the options we have to consider.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister's colleagues accept the fact there is a crisis in agriculture and allow him to make a deficiency payment, does he have a plan in place to do so immediately?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, if you look at the record the message you should get is that we have always had a plan in place. Indeed, because of our continuing concern about the deteriorating conditions in Canadian agriculture, our attention is focused whole-heartedly
and enthusiastically on a number of options the Government might have to take.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. On December 28, 1985, the former Minister, in the company of the Premier of Nova Scotia, said, with reference to the Sysco modernization, "I am here to tell you that it is going. The agreement is there. There should be no doubt now concerning the future of Sysco." In view of this inordinate delay why should the people of Cape Breton believe the modernization will be going ahead?


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (Minister of State (Small Businesses)):: Mr. Speaker, I know there are projects concerning Sysco, but since I do not have the latest information readily available I will be pleased to get in touch with the Hon. Member and give him the full details at the earliest opportunity.


David Charles Dingwall: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: I am in the same difficulty. I think that is a "take note" answer.


An Hon. Member:: He is the Acting Minister.


Mr. Speaker:: All right, in that context, a supplementary question.


FUNDING OF MODERNIZATION
David Charles Dingwall: In
view of the fact that the Prime Minister made a commitment in the summer of 1984 concerning the modernization of Sysco and 22 months have elapsed without delivering on that commitment, will the Minister undertake that moneys will be provided for the modernization, and approved by Treasury Board before we recess for the summer?


André Bissonnette: Mr. Speaker, 16 years went by before the Liberals decided to do something in Cape Breton, thus depriving the community of hundreds of millions of dollars. In the past year this Government has made important decisions about Cape Breton. We have drafted plans to boost employment in eastern Canada, in the Atlantic provinces.
June 12, 1986

I should think the only thing you can do is commend the federal Conservative Government for its accomplishments in Cape Breton.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Associate Minister of National Defence. He will be aware that on December 18, 1985, the RCMP laid charges against Levy Auto Parts of Toronto, a well-known supplier of spare parts to the military, for bribing DND officials with liquor, prostitutes, and other forms of entertainment, in return for their falsifying documents which would allow substandard military parts to be shipped to the U.S. Can the Minister explain to the House why his Department continues to this day to do business with the Levy group of companies?
Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I did not have any notice from the Hon. Member about this question. I would have undertaken to ask the appropriate questions and given him a full answer now. I will have to take it as notice and get back to him.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Perhaps the Minister would reflect back on when he was in opposition because he raised the same question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CONDUCT OF BUSINESS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, as of March 7 of this year the Pentagon again suspended Levy Auto Parts from doing any further business with them as a result of charges that they were conspiring to ship spare tank parts to Iran.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member is now into a preamble. Could we have a question?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, can we expect the Minister to explain to this House why his Government continues to do business with a company with which the Pentagon refuses to do business?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, just to set the record straight, I always gave notice when I wanted an answer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: My recollection of this issue from my days in opposition was that Levy was primarily supplying parts to
Oral Questions
other armies. We were merely supplying inspection and there was some question as to whether we were doing it properly. I think that has been dealt with and the persons who were not fulfilling their responsibilities have been punished.
As I indicated in my answer to the first question, I will look into it and get back to him with a more complete answer.


INCREASE IN EXPORTS
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for International Trade. Statistics Canada reported yesterday that Canada's exports in April increased by 9.5 per cent to a value of $10.2 billion. Can the Minister provide the House with a breakdown of the international trading partners which have contributed so dramatically to this increase of exports, and does he expect the pace to be maintained?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in commenting on the trade results for the past month. I can advise the Hon. Member in this House that our exports to the United States increased by 9 per cent, that our exports to Japan increased 25 per cent, and our exports to the United Kingdom by 27 per cent. I think all of that is proof that the new national trade strategy is alive, well, and, indeed, working. We expect this performance to continue.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Employment and Immigration 1 would like to address my question to the Acting Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary.
Voluntary organizations have charged that the Government's job-creation program is simply a giveaway to the private sector. Memos from the Government's own Department confirm that. In other words, big business is getting the big bucks and the voluntary sector is getting shortchanged.
I want to ask the Acting Minister or the Parliamentary Secretary when the Government will start listening to ordinary Canadians. When are they going to stop this drain from the voluntary sector, which has done such a good job in this

June 12, 1986
Oral Questions
country in the past? When are they going to start turning job-creation funds over to people who really need them?


Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will recall that yesterday the Minister of Employment and Immigration underlined the fact that the Canadian Jobs Strategy is working well. We are spending $6.3 million every day, and some $450 million has been designated in this area. She also indicated that the private sector had been invited to participate and the result was that there were very positive job-creations.
Let me also remind the Hon. Member that under Challenge '86, 64 per cent of all funds designated there go to the nonprofit sector, so that they are included in this total effort.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the memos from the Government's own bureaucrats contradict exactly what the Government is saying. The fact is that half of the money is going to job-creation, and even less to the public sector. When are you going to start listening to ordinary Canadians? When are you going to direct job-creation funds where they should be going?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the Minister yesterday underlined the importance of monitoring, the importance of listening, and indicated that in any good management that is an ongoing process. The Minister has assured the House that she is listening and is monitoring. The result is that there is positive job creation.


APARTHEID
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Given that the leaders of the Commonwealth have all received the Eminent Persons Report, and given that the conditions in South Africa worsen every single day, would our Prime Minister be prepared to contact those leaders by telephone, seek from them their agreement on more severe sanctions, and then offer to go to London and attempt to persuade Margaret Thatcher, on behalf of all of the leaders, that she ought to come onboard now rather than wait until millions of people have died?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada has begun the process of contacting directly the other leaders of Commonwealth countries who will be involved in the meeting
in early August. I think that it is the experience of all of us who have had to deal with the Commonwealth process that we are more likely to achieve positive results meeting together in one place, in the family of the Commonwealth, than we are at long distance, or by giving any appearance of some members ganging up on others.


CONDITIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, no one here would deny that it is better if everyone could meet. Does he not recognize that the conditions are now emergency conditions? The retaliation by the Government of South Africa requires immediate response. Would he not accept that it might be helpful to try the method we have suggested in the hope that it might work?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think what is at issue is effectiveness, not necessarily immediacy. It may well be that taking the time to consult privately, quietly, in the traditions and the privacy of the Commonwealth, will prove to be more effective than a measure that might, in the immediate aftermath of another brutal action by the South African Government, be immediately tantalizing. We have to look at the end result we are seeking, which is to stop apartheid.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Pierre H. Cadieux (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, on April 16, 1986 the Minister announced that the Oerlikon-Buhrle Machine Tool Works Company of Switzerland had been selected to supply the Canadian Forces low altitude air defence system.
Since the Minister promised that the final decision would be made only after further negotiations, can he tell anything more to the House about these negotiations and the program, considering the fact that we are about to recess for the summer?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the Hon. Member and the House that the Government has approved the purchase of a low altitude air defence system for the Canadian Armed Forces.
This kind of news will be welcomed by the CAF and our NATO allies. I expect the contract will be signed before the end of this month.
June 12, 1986


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and concerns his meeting earlier this week with Mr. Lyng, the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States. In April of this year companion Bills were introduced into the United States Senate and the House of Representatives which would put a total moratorium on all fresh, chilled and frozen beef imports into the United States from Canada pending an investigation by the International Trade Commission. Did the Minister raise any concern about these companion Bills with the Secretary of Agriculture, and was he able to get a commitment from the Secretary that the President would veto these Bills if they passed in the House of Representatives and the Senate?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, we had a very open, extensive, and frank discussion on a number of bilateral matters and, indeed, multilateral matters, with reference to North American and international conditions in the agricultural industry.
I am not certain to which specific issue the Hon. Member is referring. If he is referring to the countervail, which still exists with reference to Canadian pork being exported from Canada into the U.S., he will know that that decision is dealt with by a quasi-judicial body. It is quite separate and apart from any political intervention that any politician would want to make.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the two companion Bills in the House of Representatives and in the Senate which would place a moratorium on exports of fresh, frozen and chilled Canadian beef going into the U.S. Did the Minister discuss these Bills, which have been supported widely in the Senate and the House of Representatives, and did he get any commitment from Secretary Lyng that the President would veto any such Bill going through the Congress?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, that, along with other matters, was raised. I think it is fair to say that as far as Secretary Lyng is concerned he is very much against any further protectionist measures that would be taken on either side of the border.


CHALLENGE '86 SUMMER STUDENT BUSINESS LOAN PROGRAM
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Secretary of State in
Oral Questions
charge of youth. I have just found out that the Government has spent some $275,000 advertising a Summer Student Business Loan Program which is part of Challenge '86. All of this was done for 194 loans, and the maximum per student would be $2,000.
Will the Minister now confirm her disappointment with the failure of this program, and can she tell us why the students have no confidence whatsoever in her Summer Student Business Loan Program?


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, the Summer Student Business Loan Program is a new program. This is only the second year and we felt that it was important to have some advertising and to let the young people know about this program. Yes, I will agree with the Member for Yorkton-Melville that we are, in fact, disappointed that only the double as the number of students who applied last year to the program acquired loans to start a business. We will have to reassess this program for next year.


MANAGEMENT AND ADVERTISING COSTS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, since the original budget for this program was around the $2 million mark can the Minister explain to the House why it cost more to publicize and administer the program than the students got in loans themselves? Is this the new version of sound conservative business practice?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, on a per job basis the cost has been $967 including advertising, or $325 per job. It is not that expensive. However, since we have seen that the program is not doing as well this year, I have already taken steps so that some of the money that will not be spent will go into the seed component of the program and young people will have the benefit of the money that is there for them.


EXTERNAL AID
Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for External Relations. The generosity of Canadians and the Government toward drought relief in Africa, particularly Ethiopia, is quite remarkable. However, there are some concerns evolving with respect to the Ethiopian Government's forced action of villagization and resettlement schemes. Does the Minister believe that these Ethiopian actions are jeopardizing the effective use of our aid funds to that country?

June 12, 1986
Oral Questions


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, last week the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I were able to meet with the Ethiopian Minister of External Affairs who was visiting Ottawa. I took advantage of this opportunity to speak to him personally about the relocation program.
There were three specific points which I think the House will find reassuring. Our representations have been taken into consideration. The relocation program has been suspended, and if it is ever reactivated, it will be a voluntary program. I also had the impression that the Ethiopian Minister of External Affairs shared our concern for human rights. Finally, as the Minister responsible for CIDA, I will be following this matter very closely because it is one of my particular concerns.


MERCHANT MARINE
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity of House Leader. Could the Minister explain to the House why we are now considering the third reading stage of Bill C-75, although last week, the Prime Minister of Canada promised the Premier of Quebec that Clause 4 of Bill C-75 would be reviewed?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the Hon. Member has raised a question with respect to Bill C-75, because I thought he was going to ask me whether the commitment to me made by the Liberal Party to get this Bill through possibly by the end of the day would still stand. However, my understanding with respect to this legislation is that there have been consultations with the Province of Quebec and it is my information, which I hope is accurate and accurately reflected in my answer, is that they are satisfied with the provisions of the Bill and the assurances given by the Minister of Transport.
[ Translation]


BILL C-75-CONSEQUENCES FOR QUEBEC
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Government House Leader sees Quebec's position in just about the same light as the commitments the Opposition has made with respect to this Bill. We are opposed to the legislation, and I want to ask the Minister to realize that if the Bill is passed, it means that the entire economy, the entire future of the St. Lawrence Seaway is at stake, and with it a large number of sea ports along the St. Lawrence River.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think we can rest assured about one thing. The Minister of Transport of our Government, who is probably the best Minister of Transport the country has ever seen, is one who is committed to the interests of all parts of the country, including the Seaway. I know that he spends an inordinate amount of time consulting with various regions, including the important Province of Quebec, with respect to this legislation. He will be back in the House later today. At that time, when he has a chance to speak to the Hon. Member, I hope that some of the misgivings that the Hon. Member obviously has might be cleared up and we can pass the Bill by unanimous consent.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the national crisis in child care and the Government's commitment to employment equity, as well as setting an example for other employers, will the Minister support the request of the Public Service Alliance of Canada for a two cent per employee per hour fund for child care?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board is absent on government business. However, I will take notice of the Hon. Member's question and forward it to the Minister.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Will the Minister of Labour-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again I am in a pure "take note" situation. I must go to the next Member.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-COMPOSITION OF CANADIAN NEGOTIATING TEAM
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will he tell the House if Dr. Sylvia Ostry, our Ambassador for Multilateral Trade, is leaving to take up a position with the International Monetary Fund in Washington? Will he confirm that the only woman on the Multilateral Trade team right now will indeed leave that position soon?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, certainly I have no information to
June 12, 1986

Oral Questions GOVERNMENT POLICY
believe that Dr. Ostry would be taking a position in Washington. However, as the country and the House know, she is not only one of the most eminently outstanding economists in Canada but also in the world. It would not be surprising if there were an interest again, on the part of international institutions, in having her serve with them. As far as we are concerned, there is a very great interest by this Government in being in a position to be able to take advantage of her quite extraordinary services here.


FREE TRADE-NEGOTIATING TEAM-REPRESENTATION OF WOMEN AND FRANCOPHONES
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa

Vanier): Mr. Speaker, could the Minister give the House an update or a progress report on the representation of women and Francophones at the Office for trade negotiations, on the task force that is examining free trade? Can he inform the House today that there has been some progress since we raised the matter a few weeks ago?
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Hon. Member that it is a matter of concern to me and to the Prime Minister, and as you know, there is a certain percentage, a certain level which is acceptable, but changes must be made, and that is what we are doing.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. Despite reservations on the part of Parks Canada scientists in the field, the Minister appears to have upheld the decision by the previous Liberal Government to allow the CP to introduce up to 15 foreign plant species into Glacier National Park as part of its proposed reclamation project associated with double tracking. Will the Minister reverse this decision and force CPR to use appropriate indigenous flora along its road-bed through Glacier National Park?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I believe this is the first time, unless the Hon. Member has written to me about it, that I have heard such a representation from the Member and his Party. I will take it under advisement and get back to him.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: It may be the first time the Minister has heard from me, but he has heard about the issue before.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, if it is government policy not to turn lions, elephants, and cobras loose in our national parks, why should we allow CP to pollute the unique vegetation of Glacier National Park in order to save a few dollars? Will he take his responsibility as Minister of the Environment seriously and make sure that we do not pollute the natural vegetation of our Glacier National Park in the financial interests of the CPR?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I will take the Hon. Member's representation as one well expressed and vigorously put to the House. His position seems reasonable. I do not know all of the details surrounding the case but I will look into them and get back to the Hon. Member at the earliest possible opportunity.


SHIPYARDS
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. This morning I was talking to Mr. Beaubien, the president of the union representing workers at Vickers, and he said that over a period of six weeks, 400 of the 650 workers had been laid off, and these workers would like to know, and that is my question, whether the Minister is prepared to meet the commitment he made on December 4 in Ottawa, at a meeting, when he guaranteed that the Algonquin, the first ship in the Trump Program, would be built by the shipyards in Montreal, a commitment that was made in the presence of Mr. Paul Saunders, president of Versatile Vickers.


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, there has never been an absolute guarantee of any work going to any shipyard without proper provision being made for tenders and so on. In the interim, the TRUMP program was announced by my colleague, the Associate Minister of National Defence. That includes the Algonquin. As my colleague indicated, that vessel is going to the Davie shipyard.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER SOLVE SITUATION OF VERSATILE VICKERS EMPLOYEES IN MONTREAL
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the Minister correctly, and the employees who were watching, the Minister admits he cannot keep his commitments and that these people will remain unemployed all summer.

June 12, 1986
Oral Questions
Is the Minister going to find a solution for the 400 employees at Versatile Vickers in Montreal? Yes or no?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I have met with management and the union of the shipyards involved on a number of occasions in the past few months with a view, collectively, to coming to some solution to their problem. We all recognize the difficulties in the shipbuilding industry. We are trying to do the best we can. Discussions are continuing and we hope to do something for the workers, but there can be no guarantee in the circumstances.


Raymond John Skelly: Question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: It is three o'clock.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, it is Thursday and I usually give some indication as to the Business of the House, and I will probably be doing it more frequently because we are in extended hours and there are always discussions and consultations going on.
First, let me say that negotiations are ongoing with respect to the line-up of Private Members' Business. I think we will come to an understanding in order to accommodate those Hon. Members who have, because of allotted days and opposition days, missed their turn, as it were, and fallen to the bottom of the list.
We are now negotiating with representatives of each of the Parties to assure those people who missed their time in Private Members' Business. In order to deal with this in Private Members' Hour during the course of the next 10 days or so, I hope to have a consent order which will be agreeable to all Hon. Members in the very near future.
I have also had a chance to talk to the House leaders and have indicated that the business we will now proceed on will be changed from Bill C-75 to Bill C- 111, with respect to Customs Tariff.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Oh, gee!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We will continue to discuss the business of the days ahead with an idea of expediting the provision of very progressive legislation, I would say, in this House.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Right in the middle of my speech.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Tomorrow it is my intention, Mr. Speaker, to call Bill C-96, the EPF Bill, and I hope everyone will
continue to watch for these business announcements in case there are any changes.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: What does the Government House Leader intend to call if Bill C- 111 is completed before the end of business today?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if we get through Bill C- 111, there are two possibilities; one is that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) will have a chance to speak to his critics about Bill C-75 and reassure them with respect to consultations and discussions which have taken place with the provinces and, in particular, with the Province of Quebec. The other possibility, of course, will be Bill C-96. We might get an early start at that. It is an important Bill and I know Hon. Members are interested in speaking to it. So I would advise that, until further notice, Bill C-96 will be the back-up Bill.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) on a question of privilege arising out of Question Period?


Brian Vincent Tobin: I am just wondering, Mr. Speaker, what the ruling is with respect to changing the order of business when an Hon. Member has only barely begun his speech?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That's the reason.


John Napier Turner: They are afraid of you.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is the last time I do you a favour.


Mr. Speaker:: I assure the Hon. Member that his privilege with regard to this matter, in terms of when the Bill is called again, will be protected by the Chair.


Mr. Prud'homme:: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker,
I would like to submit-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a point of privilege?


George Albert Proud: No, no, on the same point as my colleague.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Albert Proud: No, I think the Speaker would be interested in listening to the point. I have checked and I cannot find any precedent when an Hon. Member who is the middle of a speech suddenly will have his speech interrupted by the fact that the House Leader, as is his privilege, changes the order of business. To do that while an Hon. Member is in the middle of a speech, I would put to the Chair, is extremely difficult to believe. The Hon. Member should be allowed first to terminate his speech and then the House Leader, and it is
June 12, 1986

his right, can then change the Orders of the Day and go to another Bill. I think it is an interesting point for the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: On the same point of order?


Ian Deans: No, no.


Mr. Speaker:: Let me simply say to the Hon. Member that in fact what happened at two o'clock is exactly what normally happens when we break at one o'clock. We may come back at three o'clock and the speech may be resumed. The Chair has previously seen a speech interrupted at one o'clock and the matter changed at three o'clock. I, therefore, see no question of privilege or point of order in this matter.


Brian Vincent Tobin: One last point, Mr. Speaker, please?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) wishes to speak on the same point?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I can be assured, since I am only at the beginning of my speech, that I will be giving notice when Bill C-75 is called again and it will not be done when I am away from Parliament.


Some Hon. Members:: We hope so.


Brian Vincent Tobin: I would find that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member has the same right as every other Hon. Member to notice and the same right to come to the House.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: It will be on the Order Paper.


Mr. Friesen:: Point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) indicated a point of order first.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my point is with regard to the House Business. I wonder if I could get an understanding now that on those Bills which are reported back to the House, the requirement for notice of the filing of amendments would be waived and that we would agree by unanimous consent that amendments could be filed without adequate notice? For example, if Bill C-96 is called tomorrow there is not sufficient time for us to file an amendment or, perhaps, two which we intended to file.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I think the Standing Orders speak for themselves in that regard. The reason I mentioned that is because I thought we would continue to have discussions this afternoon with respect to the Business of the House, if there is some matter we can discuss. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, I have always attempted to accommodate Hon.
Oral Questions
Members with respect to reasonable requests. I simply put the back-up Bill as Bill C-96 on the basis that it would be agreeable to the House. I can call something else, if it is not.


Ian Deans: Thank you.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I understand the rights of an Hon. Member to continue his speech after it has been interrupted by Question Period. However, I recall very clearly hearing the Chair call Orders of the Day after which it recognized the Government House Leader. I noted at that time that the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) was not in his place and came walking in while the Government House Leader was making his remarks on a point of order. So I would respectfully suggest that he has lost his position in the speaking order.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Creativity runs rampant today. Let me simply say to the Hon. Member that the Chair had never recognized an Hon. Member on debate. The Chair had called Orders of the Day, then heard a point of order immediately. At that point no other Hon. Member had been called. In the Chair's view, on Bill C-75, the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe still has the floor.


George Albert Proud: Good try.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Benjamin:: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, raised by the Hon. Member from Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin). Under the rules, would it not be required, unless there is unanimous agreement, that when that Bill is to be called again, the Hon. Member will know about it on the Order Paper, or else there will have had to be unanimous agreement to change the order of Business?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is asking the Chair to judge in advance of the calling of a Bill whether it is in order to call it. No Chair could do that.
Does the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) have a separate point of order?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members know that the schedule of the House is entirely at the disposal of the Government.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Can I have the floor, Mr. Speaker? Thank you. I want to come back to the original point, that is, Private Members' Hour. Nothing has been decided yet and I want to get some clarification because I have to warn some people in this caucus that they may have to speak tomorrow. For

June 12, 1986
Customs Tariff
clarification I refer Members of the House to today's Order relationship between Canada and Caribbean Commonwealth
raper and Notices wherein it states that Bill C-272 standing in member countries.
the name of the Hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) -r,	. ,	,	.
will be called on June 13. I understand there is a disposition	,The commerclal a"d economic ties between Canada and
not to call that Bill tomorrow. If that is so I would like to	H10556 countries date back to the days before the advent of
know. If we are to negotiate eight Private Members'	Hours	in	Canadlan Confederation. Mr. Speaker, these historic ties arethe next two weeks I would also like to know when	we	will	re'lnforced by	the fact that Canada and the Caribbeanagree to do that. Perhaps tomorrow will be too late	countries share	a common language, that their democratic'	institutions are	similar, and that they are members of theCommonwealth.


Mr. Lewis:: Mr. Speaker, if I could be of assistance to the House, what we have proposed in the process of negotiations is to take what is in the Order Paper as it stands and make two changes about which I have spoken to the Hon. Member. Our staff is presently working on this matter at the moment. If the Hon. Member will bear with us, I think he will see that we can come back to the House and everything will be done so that no one is surprised. I am sure it can be taken care of without the necessity of having us negotiate it on the floor of the House of Commons.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C- 111, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff and to amend an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today Bill C-lll, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff and to amend an Act to amend the Customs Tariff. This Bill follows from a Notice of Ways and Means motion tabled on February 26, which was revised by a subsequent notice tabled on May 21.
Bill C-lll amends the Customs Tariff to provide for preferential duty-free entry for imports from the Commonwealth Caribbean. It also makes a technical amendment to Section 15 of the Act, and amends other provisions to respond to recommendations of the Tariff Board, and to the evolving needs of the Canadian private sector. As well, it amends Bill C-38, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, governing importation of obscene material and hate propaganda.
All Members of the House are aware that Canada has an important role to play in assisting developing countries to meet their economic development goals.
[ Translation]
As Hon. Members also know, Mr. Speaker, Canada's external policy acknowledges the existence of a special

Because of this special relationship the Government has responded positively to a request made to our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). The Commonwealth Caribbean Heads of Government asked Canada to institute a package of trade, development assistance and double taxation measures to assist them in their economic development efforts. This Bill makes provision for the cornerstone of CARIBCAN, as these measures are to be known. It provides for the duty-free entry of the vast majority of imports from these countries.
When the Government was considering how to respond to this request from the Commonwealth Caribbean the views of Canadian manufacturers were sought. I am pleased to advise Hon. Members that there was broad support for this initiative among Canadian manufacturers, provided that certain safeguard mechanisms were integrated into the CARIBCAN duty-free provisions.
Specifically, manufacturers wished the Government to ensure that only goods which were actually produced in the Commonwealth Caribbean qualified for duty-free entry. They also wished to be able to make their case to have duty-free rates withdrawn, should imports of particular products under CARIBCAN cause Canadian-produced goods to become uncompetitive in the domestic market.
This Bill responds to these concerns. It provides for appropriate "rules of origin" to be established and allows the Governor in Council to withdraw duty-free rates in cases of injury, or threat of injury, to domestic producers.

I will ask the Tariff Board to accept and examine applications for the withdrawal of duty-free entry from Canadian manufacturers. All parties concerned, including manufacturers from the countries involved-Caribbean Commonwealth member countries and (or) their Governments-will have an opportunity to make representations to the Tariff Board when it holds public hearings to consider these applications.

Although there was, as I have mentioned, broad support for providing duty-free entry under CARIBCAN, there were some manufacturers, however-notably in the textile and clothing, luggage and handbag, and leather garment sectors and in two sub-sectors of the petroleum industry-that expressed strong reservations. They felt that duty-free imports from the Commonwealth Caribbean could cause them injury.
June 12, 1986_______________COMMONS DEBATES_______________________14307
In deciding on the scope and coverage of the duty-free provisions of CARIBCAN, Canada had to balance its foreign policy interests and its responsibility to assist developing countries with certain sensitive sectors in our own economy. Therefore goods in these sectors are excluded from duty-free entry under CARIBCAN.
In spite of these exclusions Hon. Members should note that duty-free access is being extended to all possible imports, including a large number of goods which currently are not manufactured in, or exported to Canada from the Commonwealth Caribbean. When combined with other aspects of CARIBCAN-for example, training seminars for the Trade Commissioners of these countries-there will be an opportunity for Commonwealth Caribbean countries to identify new opportunities in the Canadian market and to increase their export earnings over the medium term.

Mr. Speaker, since the CARIBCAN duty-free provisions stray from the basic GATT principle of non-discriminatory treatment-or the most favoured nation clause-Canada is now seeking an exemption from this GATT commitment so as to be able to follow up on this initiative. There are precedents for this kind of preferential trade agreement, so we are confident that our endeavours will be successful.

Part of the success of duty-free entry under CARIBCAN will depend on the degree to which Commonwealth Caribbean officials and exporters are aware of its provisions. Therefore, in keeping with the spirit of CARIBCAN, the Canadian International Development Agency has funded training seminars in a series of Commonwealth Caribbean countries which took place in early May.
The Prime Minister gave an undertaking to his Commonwealth Caribbean counterparts that trade would begin to flow under CARIBCAN by mid-1986. Therefore the provisions of Bill C-111 are effective as of June 15, 1986.
I would now like to turn to other provisions of this Bill which make a number of amendments to the Customs Tariff, effective February 27, 1986. I will now outline the most important of these.

And as you know, Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members are aware of the importance this Government attaches to the removal of barriers which hinder disabled citizens.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, this Bill provides for the dutyfree entry of articles specially designed for guide-dogs for the blind. Similarly, to ensure that Canadians of all religious denominations are treated equally, religious ancestral shrines will also enter the country duty free, as was already the case for previously identified religious articles not available from Canadian production sources.
Customs Tariff
The Customs Tariff is also amended to implement a number of recommendations in Phase II of the Tariff Board's report on tariff items applicable to goods not manufactured in Canada.
Several other amendments take action on representations received from the private sector for tariff changes which respond to evolving needs. For example, Canadian tourists returning from the United States who are entitled to the annual $300 duty and tax-free tourist exemption will now be able to ship goods and claim them as part of their exemption. Previously, only Canadian tourists returning from countries beyond the continental limits of North America were entitled to claim shipped goods.
Large sized off-highway tires will be accorded duty-free entry as will backhoes and power shovels used in mining operations, none of which are available from Canadian production. A technical amendment to Section 15 of the Act is being proposed to ensure that the Government can respond quickly to the needs of the agricultural community in the implementation of seasonal rates of duty on imports of fresh fruits and vegetables.
This Bill also contains amendments to provide duty-free entry for certain semi-conductor devices and computer parts. These amendments were proposed as part of an agreement between Canada, the United States and Japan to eliminate tariffs on these goods effective January 20, 1986. As was announced in the House on June 2 by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), amendments will be proposed to delete these provisions and reinstate the previous rates of duties on these goods as part of the measures taken in response to the U.S. tariff action affecting Canadian exports of red cedar shakes and shingles.
Finally, this Bill extends the period of effect of Bill C-38, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff. Bill C-38 came into force on April 3, 1985 as an interim measure to allow customs officials to continue to intercept obscene material and hate propaganda. As Hon. Members are aware, on March 14, 1985 the Federal Court of Appeal ruled the following:
Tariff Item 99201-1 is not a reasonable limitation upon the freedoms guaranteed by Section 2(B) of the Charter (of Rights and Freedoms) and is of no force or effect.
That tariff item had been worded ambiguously, so in response to this ruling and to ensure that the Canadian market would not be flooded with obscene material the Government moved quickly to amend the Customs Tariff to provide more specific definitions of what constitutes obscene material and hate propaganda. This was done by tying these definitions to existing definitions in the Criminal Code. This measure was rapidly and unanimously agreed to by all Parties.
These amendments were to remain in effect until the 1986 summer recess of Parliament since it had been anticipated that new legislation relating to pornography would be developed

June 12, 1986
Customs Tariff
and would be in place as law by this time. As Hon. Members are aware, the proposed legislation was introduced in the House on June 10 by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie). While the legislation is being considered, the Government wishes to ensure that customs officials will continue to have the powers that they possessed prior to and following the Federal Court of Appeal ruling. The Bill contains a technical amendment, the sole purpose of which is to extend the period of effect of Bill C-38, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, until December 1987.
In conclusion, this Bill takes action to assist those countries of the Commonwealth Caribbean with which Canada has a special relationship by providing them with duty-free access to the Canadian market for their exports. It also responds to the evolving needs of Canadian manufacturers and identifiable groups in Canadian society. Finally, it ensures that customs officials will continue to intercept obscene material and hate propaganda at the border. As such, this Bill deserves the timely consideration and support of all Hon. Members.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I found to my surprise this afternoon that the Government had decided to change the orders of the day without giving us prior notice or time to go back to our offices and pick up our notes.
Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, I shall try to comment on this Bill, and I must say that at first glance, and let us say up to half-way through the text, we agree with the principle of the Bill, as we have in the past with respect to other Bills concerning the restructuring of our customs tariff system.
Mr. Speaker, we agree that developing countries should be allowed a reduced tariff or even duty-free entry for the products they export to our country, provided this does not pose a threat to our manufacturers and our jobs. The Bill does provide some degree of monitoring in this respect, and the Minister will have the power to intervene if necessary.
However, the Bill fails to indicate exactly how the Minister of Revenue Canada-Customs and Excise will control the various mechanisms involved and ensure that the entry of such goods will not be prejudicial to our jobs or our manufacturers here in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, considering the stories we hear every day about Revenue Canada's handling of certain cases, it is not surprising that the question often arises: How can such things happen?
Mr. Speaker, I just received a letter from a Toronto company that, after many years of struggling with its tax problems, had finally managed to get back on its feet and was straightening out its financial statements and creating jobs in the hi-tech sector. But lo and behold, Revenue Canada sent in a huge assessment! After negotiations, the company was willing to pay $40,000 immediately, and make arrangements for subsequent payments so that it would be able to absorb these costs and continue operating at the same time. But
Revenue Canada refused the down payment and wrote to all the company's suppliers and customers, asking them not to pay the company but to send all payments due to the company directly to Revenue Canada, and of course you know what that means. On April 23, the bank was forced to declare the company bankrupt. And since May 2, Mr. Speaker, 175 people are out of work.
Therefore, while we agree with this Bill, which deals with the import of goods from developing countries, we suggest that the Government should set up a mechanism to guarantee that there will be no harmful effect on our industries, businesses and jobs.
Mr. Speaker, Sections 9 and 10 of this Bill have no indirect or direct relation with customs or the tariff. They extend for one year the existing provisions on the import and export of pornography and obscene material. The Government has therefore failed since it had, promised last year to take care of the pornography problem beginning in July 1986. It has not been able to do so. A few days ago, the Government introduced a Bill which has been criticized by just about everyone, but in legislation to amend the customs tariff which allows developing countries to export to Canada, it includes two sections which extend the application of existing provisions on the import of pornographic material.
Mr. Speaker, this is typical of how the Conservative Goverment likes to act: always in secret. As I said earlier, I hope that it will monitor these duty free or very low duty imports so that Canadian industries will not be penalized.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I suppose in a sense it is a pleasure to speak to Bill C-111 this afternoon. We have some very serious concerns about it. It is almost an omnibus Bill including a variety of different issues. It deals with obscene material imported into Canada, with the decision to launch a special tariff on computer and semiconductor parts, and with the arrangements with a number of Caribbean countries. In a sense it is a smoke-screen Bill. It gives the impression that Canada has decided to play a major role in assisting economic development in the Caribbean. Following the Caribbean-based initiative by the President of the United States, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is giving the impression that things will improve in terms of our trading relationship which will benefit those countries. Unfortunately when one looks closely at the situation, one realizes that that is not the case.
Recent publications have indicated that the situation in many Caribbean countries is reaching crisis proportions. Needless to say, what is going on in Haiti these days is an extremely problematic situation in terms of civil unrest in that particular part of the world. The Caribbean countries are members of the Commonwealth and are experiencing real difficulties. For example, Jamaica was expecting great things. A Conservative Government was elected on that island on
June 12, 1986

promises of a new era and that things would change drastically. Well, they changed drastically. For young people under the age of 30 years there is an unemployment rate of 60 per cent. Approximately one million people are living off food stamps. Its economy is literally in ruin. Some very serious challenges are facing the people of Jamaica.
Just the other day 1 read in the newspaper that the country of Guyana is experiencing unbelievable problems in terms of its debt. Essentially the IMF has said that it is no longer interested in assisting Guyana in terms of providing any more loans. I suppose it could be put in the basket case category of the famous triage approach; it is almost beyond the point of return.
I use these two fairly extreme examples of Guyana and Jamaica to indicate that things are very serious. Canada could and should be doing a great deal to relieve those problems. We have a historic relationship with the Caribbean. I suppose it goes back to the very beginning of trade in Canada. Saltfish was sailed down to the West Indies, and we brought back molasses, sugar, rum, and all sorts of other products. Of course that trading problem resulted in Canadian banks becoming the major banking institutions of the Caribbean and so on.
When the Prime Minister attended the Caribbean conference last year he indicated that Canada would take steps to free up some of the trading restrictions. Basically that is what Bill C-l 11 attempts to do in part. There will now be duty-free access to a vast majority of our imports from the Caribbean countries. An overwhelming percentage is now duty-free, as it should be.
Let us look at the exemptions to free trade with the Caribbean countries. They include textiles, clothing, footwear, and leather products. The Caribbean countries want to expand their export markets or their export production in the areas of textiles, clothing, footwear, and leather products. In other words, the areas in which they hope to expand and therefore create more jobs and a stronger manufacturing base in their countries are the areas in which we are essentially retaining tariffs. I really do not know what to say, other than to say that if we were really serious about assisting those countries we would not keep duties on those particular commodity areas.
We also see included a 60 per cent local value added criterion. In other words, if at least 60 per cent of the shirts, footwear, or whatever are not locally produced, so to speak, they do not qualify for access into Canada. Much of the manufacturing in Caribbean countries is on a value added basis, with much of the production being done offshore, as they call it. Materials and parts come into those countries to be assembled, finished, and exported. With the 60 per cent local value added criterion, basically onerous restrictions are placed upon exports from the Caribbean to Canada. Informally a number of Jamaican businessmen have said that this initiative will not change much the relationship between Jamaica and Canada.
Customs Tariff
Basically we are of the opinion that the duty on all manufacturing should have been removed, particularly those areas with the greatest growth potential. The region itself is in economic crisis. A more generous market access for manufacturers, really at little cost to Canada, would have demonstrated a more substantive commitment to the development of the Caribbean basin. It would be another way to assist those countries in reducing the debt burden with which almost all of them find themselves faced these days.
I should like to summarize the major thrust of Bill C-l 11. Certainly it gives the impression that Canada is opening up its trading opportunities with a number of Caribbean countries. The reality is that there is not much difference. However, to be fair and to give credit where at least a minute amount of credit is due, it is an improvement; it is better than it was. Considering the glowing comments of the Prime Minister when he was in the Caribbean about what Canada would be doing in terms of liberalizing trade, he gave the impression to many chambers of commerce, leading business people, and trade union leaders in the Caribbean that in fact there would be a free trade arrangement with those countries. Unfortunately, that has not been accomplished in Bill C-111.
I want to talk about a second part of this Bill, the removal of duty on computers and semi-conductor parts in accordance with a trilateral agreement between Canada, the United States and Japan. That seems odd to me because we have just heard we are not going to remove the duty but put the duty back again. Here is a Bill that will remove duty on semi-conductor parts while at the same time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) says we are going to retaliate against the United States, and by implication Japan and others, by increasing and keeping the tariff. I really do not know what the Government is doing. Perhaps we could have an explanation of that situation once we get the matter into committee.
Removal of the duty was a move that had widespread support among Canadian producers. They felt they were strong enough to compete and expand their markets in a free trade environment with Japan and the United States. Again, as a result of the recent decision, this whole thing has been thrown into some question. It seems to me we are moving on a Bill when this whole section ought to have been deleted.
One item that gives me a great deal of concern is a little item tacked on in Clause 10 of the Bill which deals with the prohibition on the import of obsence material. So that no one misunderstands what I am about to say, the New Democratic Party has always been extremely concerned, wishing the Government would act with more haste to stop the importation of material which depicts violence against women and the sexual exploitation of children. There is no question of that. Just so my following remarks will not be understood, I want to say that we would like to see the Government moving with haste to close off our borders to the importation of much of the

June 12, 1986
Customs Tariff
pornographic material that does such an injustice to women and particularly children.
In Clause 10 of the Bill the Government indicates that it intends to extend the provisions of tariff Item 99201-1 beyond its original phasing out date of October 30, 1986 to December 31, 1987. In the midst of a Bill introduced by the Minister of Finance dealing with economic development issues, we find this clause which is of concern to civil libertarians all across Canada as it extends the tariff item which currently prohibits the importation into Canada of certain publications and materials. What this has to do with the major thrust of this Bill is beyond me.
I think it is fair to say that censorship by the state is a very serious matter. All parliamentarians have registered their concerns on many, many occasions. We must be certain that our regulations are not unduly restrictive. We must make sure that moral decisions are not being made by bureaucrats in evaluating imported materials. In the area of pornography, we have been waiting for many months for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) to bring forward a comprehensive legislative package. The Minister just the other day indicated the general direction in which the Government plans to move. As we have seen by the headlines, I suppose in almost every major newspaper in Canada, there is a great deal of concern that the Government has been moving with undue haste and has not thoughtfully approached this matter of limiting the importation without a very clear definition of what pornography and obscene material is; a package which would include Criminal Code amendments where necessary and which would draw on the recommendations of the Fraser-Badgley Commissions to set out more precise and modern formulations of just what constitutes, for example, "obscene" or "degrading" literature to be prohibited entry into Canada. Indeed, the June 1986 sunset clause on tariff Item 99201-1 was included because it was assumed by this House and all the Members in it that the Government by that date would have presented a reform package to deal with these important national concerns.
As all Members of the House know, these are important national concerns. People are concerned about the importation of pornography, particularly, as I say, depicting violence against women and depicting sexual relations with children. However, Mr. Speaker, the only thing I can read by this particular Bill is that the Government does not plan to move with haste. As a matter of fact it has now asked that the date for deciding on this tariff business be extended many months into December, 1987. I think we have an obligation as parliamentarians to move much more quickly in dealing with this material.
In matters related to the protection of the rights and liberties of political minorities and movements there is also a cause for concern, Mr. Speaker. This tariff item allows customs officials to prohibit entry of material they deem to be "seditious" or "treasonable". There is a grave danger that those who dissent from majority views may find their freedom of expression extremely limited because it will then be an
official, a bureaucrat, who will decide whether the material is treasonable or seditious without a clear, precise definition of those two terms. We must remember that the Federal Court of Appeal struck down an earlier version of this tariff item because it was too vague and posed unreasonable limitations upon the freedoms guaranteed to Canadians by the Charter of Rights and our Constitution.
Many Canadians have expressed similar concern about this current tariff item. Indeed, journalists, publishers and bookstore owners have expressed their fears about Government restrictions on the freedom of Canadians to read what they choose because our existing regulations are open to abuse by secretive custom officials. We have been pointing out, as you are well aware, Mr. Speaker, day after day that the systems at the borders are becoming much more subjective in the decision making of what enters Canada, and very loose, in that much of the imported material, the overwhelming material, some say as high as 90 per cent, goes totally unexamined, unchecked. That is one of the major concerns we have.
On this issue, Mr. William French, a respected national columnist with The Globe and Mail recently wrote:
-the censors are endangering hard-fought victories gained over the years in the battle for freedom of expression ... They have wide latitude in how they define not only obscenity but reading material they deemed to be subversive. They have banned political books in the past and could quite easily do so in the future.
My concern, and I suspect it is shared by all Members, is that until we have very precise and understandable definitions of what the terms seditious and treasonable mean, in many cases those people offering differing political views of how Canada ought to be governed, people who represent ideology from political movement contrary to what might be found in our own country, may be having their views and publications banned from Canada and, consequently, their views and publications kept from people who obviously have inquiries to make in these areas.
There is no question that we need legislation to deal with the importation of material which depicts violence against women and sexual exploitation of children. Yet, instead of responding to this concern, it appears by this particular move that the Government has taken the easy way out. It has renewed this inadequate provision which gives excessively broad powers, interpretive powers to the bureaucrats, quite possibly in the long run at the expense of minorities or political movements whose views may not be in tune with the Government of the day. I might say on an item like this that the Government of the day might be quite open and feel quite prepared to accept a variety of political views coming into the country for Canadians. But what about another Government that might feel quite different? This particular item as it is presently in Bill C- 111 would give the Government of the day an opportunity to restrict alternate political views from being published and circulated in Canada.
We, as New Democrats, had hoped that the Government would have made a serious effort to deal with these issues. Simply to renew this tariff item avoids the difficult questions
June 12, 1986

raised by civil libertarians and the urgent need for comprehensive reforms to ensure that women and children are not exploited in pornographic literature.
In conclusion, the impression is that Bill C- 111 is going to provide considerable assistance to our friends in the Caribbean. This is simply not the case. It also assumes that we will reduce tariffs on semi-conductor parts and computers. We know from the actions of the Government and comments of the Minister of Finance recently that we will be increasing tariffs on semi-conductor parts and other items. There seems to be confusion there.
Finally, the extension of the phase-out date on the prohibition of the import of obscene material to December 31, 1987, in order to allow legislation to be brought in, seems to us to be excessive. We do not need more than a year to deal with this very critical problem. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, we will be submitting appropriate amendments to Bill C-111 in committee in the hope that we can bring some sense to Bill C-l 11 and make it something which will help the Caribbean countries and enable us to move with more haste in dealing with the importation of pornography.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on the motion in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). 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 referred to a legislative committee.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal-Post Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Bill comes before the House at report stage at this time. However, the Chair is not yet ready to rule on the motions which have been moved to the Bill. I therefore propose to Members that we proceed with debate on Motion No. 1, without prejudice to whatever ruling may be brought down at a later time.
Federal-Provincial fiscal arrangements


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know what the disposition of other Members in the House would be. However, the House is ready to deal with Bill C-75 and I was in the middle of my speech on that Bill. The Government has called Bill C-96, notwithstanding the fact that the Speaker is not ready or able at this time to rule on amendments which have been moved to this Bill. We have the absolutely unprecedented position of the Speaker, through no fault of the Speaker, being forced to say that-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Government is playing games on C-75.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Who is playing games on C-75?


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Government.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Who is making commitments and breaking them?


Brian Vincent Tobin: No commitments were made.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order! I think we can deal with this matter quite rapidly by reminding Hon. Members that the Speaker has already dealt with the issue brought to the attention of the Chair by the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe. Before the point of order was raised I proposed to the House that we proceed on Motion No. 1. I would like to draw to the attention of the House, and especially to the attention of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), that if we do proceed at this time it is without prejudice to any ruling the Chair may render in a very short time.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order. Frankly, I am concerned about proceeding with debate on a technical amendment-and that is what this is, it is substantive but technical-without knowing whether the amendment is indeed in order. I am not normally opposed to proceeding with amendments when the amendments are of a less important nature than the amendment before us.
I am speaking slowly, as I often do, while trying to get a sense from the Chair as to how long the Chair thinks it might be before a ruling on the acceptance or nonacceptance of Motion No. 1 might be given. As the Chair will recognize, this amendment is very crucial. I submit that it would be unfortunate to have an extended debate on this crucial amendment only to discover in the final analysis that the debate was for nothing.
The House is sitting longer hours in order to facilitate the passage of government business. I suggest that is makes a bit of a mockery of the process if we end up debating things which we do not know will be accepted by the Chair. Perhaps we could get a preliminary ruling on any one of the amendments. It does not necessarily need to be on Motion No. 1. For example, we could debate Motion No. 4 which deals with the date of proclamation. We could have a reasonable debate on

June 12, 1986
Federal-Provincial fiscal arrangements
whether or not the Bill should come into force on or before April 1, 1987, and assume that the Chair will allow a vote to be taken on that matter. I would like the Chair to consider whether we might deal with Motion No. 4 rather than Motion No. 1. I would be interested to hear from my colleague in the Liberal Party as to whether he thinks that may be a reasonable way of dealing with it.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) on the same point of order.


Mr. Garneau:: Yes. Mr. Speaker, if we look at the proposals or motions that are in my name, clearly they are interrelated to a large extent-quite apart from the ruling you will be making on the motion or motions-because several of them require that the Bill become effective as of April 1st, 1987. Sure enough, if you find them unacceptable, if you say this motion is unacceptable, this will impact on the others also. And motion No. 4, which of course could be debated separately, no doubt could be debatable, but inasmuch as you will have made a ruling, as my colleague said earlier on motion No. 1, if it applies to motion No. 4.
This is why I was suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that in the meantime, before you make a ruling, the Deputy House Leader could allow us to return to Bill C-75, and when you are ready to hand out your ruling, then the discussion might be resumed. We would be saving the time of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Then, in order to avoid wasting more time than is needed, I am pleased to announce to Hon. Members that I will be in a position to make the ruling I had to postpone a few minutes ago.
There are five report stage motions on today's Notice Paper in amendment to Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977. The Chair has had an opportunity to look at all the motions standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). Unfortunately it must rule that Motions No. 1 to 4 infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown and are therefore out of order. In this regard I would refer the Hon. Member to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773, paragraph seven.
I must also rule Motion No. 5 out of order, with regret, on the grounds that it attempts to amend the parent Act. I again refer the Hon. Member to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773, paragraph eight.
If the Hon. Member wishes to present procedural arguments as to the acceptability of the amendments, I am prepared to hear such arguments now.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, when introducing these motions, particularly Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4, I was indeed expecting that you might want to reject these amendments on the basis of the argument you have just made. But with respect to Motion No. 5 which would set a termination date-a sunset clause, as it is commonly called-it seems to me that it does not affect the Government's prerogative to introduce tax measures because it would instead set a limit on public expenditures. Nothing would prevent the Government from coming back with the Bill if it wanted to and, with all due respect to the Chair, I would suggest that Motion No. 5 should be considered as being different in the sense that it does not provide for additional public outlays, on the contrary, it puts a limit on them.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: While I appreciate the nature of the argument by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau)-

I fully appreciate the meaning of his argument. Nevertheless I must conclude that Motion No. 5 introduced by the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides is procedurally unacceptable.
Therefore the House shall proceed to third reading of the Bill.


Abram Ernest Epp: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Abram Ernest Epp: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.
[ Translation]


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, we are now in the last stage of the study of Bill C-96. Both on second reading and in committee, the Official Opposition has tried to focus on the unfairness of this measure, and our argument has been that the Conservative Government is saddling the provinces with this tax load just to be able to tell Canadians that the financial situation has improved, disregarding the fact that the provinces will have to pick up the tab. In an attempt to make people believe that Bill C-96 does not really change anything much, the Department of Finance put out a brochure which does not quite give the whole truth. It indicates what post-secondary education and health program transfer payments to the provinces will eventually amount to, but the document conveniently skips over what these transfer payments would have been had Bill C-96 not been introduced in the House. In a nutshell, what this Bill does is to slow the growth of transfer payments, so much so that the explanation given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his Budget statement was that the Government wanted to save $2 billion during the fiscal year 1990-91.
June 12, 1986

But how can they argue-and this is in a brochure the Department of Finance distributed to these Members and which many of them have used-how can they say that Bill C-96 will not affect the provinces' public finances, when the Budget indicates that the purpose of Bill C-96 is to save $2 billion in the year 1990-91 alone! And if we look at what Bill C-96 represents in terms of financial resources foregone by the provinces and their post-secondary education and health programs, if we want to see what kind of impact it can have, all we have to do is look at the figures that were released, and we see a cumulative amount of nearly $8 billion, if we go as far as 1991. This means that the provinces, as we were told in committee by those who appeared before the committee and those who sent in briefs, will have a difficult choice to make. They can cut health and post-secondary education programs. Or, they can set higher tuition fees for universities, CEGEPS or commmunity colleges, and in the health care sector, increase hospital charges for private rooms. They will either transfer this Bill the federal Government no longer wants to pay to the users or the taxpayers, or they will have to increase own deficits.
If that happens, it would be the supreme irony, at a time when Government has constantly been haranguing us on the subject. Mr. Speaker, I wonder how many Members, on your righthand side have risen to defend the concept that the deficit has to be cut at any price? I call that deficit theology. And now, the same Government, those same Members are transferring the deficit to the provinces with the message: You do something about it.
I call this flagrant injustice. On the Government side they were talking about the 6-and 5-program which included reductions in transfer payments. I may remind the Hon. Member that first of all, this was done only for post-secondary education transfers-health programs were not affected-and that the 6-and 5-program had a time limit of not more than two years, and while Bill C-96 restricts or reduces the expenditure growth rate, it is for an unlimited period.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I had tried to introduce amendments to the Bill precisely to set a time limit on the duration of this legislation. I did my best. Indeed, the committee heard a suggestion made by a group speaking on behalf of Canadian workers, urging the committee and Parliament to set a time limit to see in a few years what would be the consequences of Bill C-96, and so as to be able to launch another public debate which would certainly have been beneficial with respect to the application of the basic principles of these health and postsecondary education programs.
For technical reasons, my Motion No. 5 aimed at setting a time limit on this legislation was rejected, as were propositions intended to put off enactment for a year just so there would be enough time to hold meaningful negotiations with the provinces.
Federal-Provincial fiscal arrangements
Worse still, Mr. Speaker, we are dealing with Bill C-96 at a time when the fiscal arrangements between Canada and the provinces have only one more year to run. We are in the fifth year, the last year of the agreements, and under normal circumstances that is the time used by the central Government and the provinces to hold serious consultations. On the contrary, once the Government had announced its decision to cut expenditures by $2 billion in 1990-91, it had to begin slashing in transfer payments to the provinces, and there was a federal-provincial conference. Every single Minister who spoke publicly said that this legislation was unacceptable. There was no consultation to speak of, it was simply a Government fiat. The fact of the matter is that if my Motion No. 1 had been accepted the Government and Parliament would have been able to undertake more thorough negotiations to find possibly cheaper ways of delivering health care services. During consideration of this Bill in committee, we received submissions which recommended, for instance, that we establish first line care so that nurses may provide care at the time of a first consultation before the patient goes to a hospital, either at an outside patient clinic or at a doctor's office, or so that they may advise on care for minor injuries, and if the Government had taken the time, it would probably have been able to come to acceptable agreements with the provinces for such matters. Instead, the Government decided to use its majority and not to hear the suggestions made by various groups or to accept the proposals contained in my motions. Indeed, while these motions may not have been in order technically, the Government could have made them acceptable by proposing them in its own name as they deal with a financial matter. However, the Progressive Conservative Government has obviously decided to solve its problem by transferring it to others. In this regard, I could give numerous examples of things that happened during consideration of the Bill by the legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker, the committee received the visit of many groups. We heard nursing associations. We heard the association of colleges which provide post-secondary education. We heard groups representing the interests of foreign students in Canada. There is serious concern that Bill C-96 will force the universities to increase the registration fees for foreign students. Some might say that, as these are not Canadian citizens, it will not really affect the quality of education in Canada, but a very well-documented paper presented to us clearly shows that the participation of foreign students on our university campuses is a major asset in the field of research and development.
In other words, those foreign students often come here to work towards Ph. D. degrees, therby providing many of our university departments with important human resources which strenghten their research communities, a positive result not only for our own universities in the short run, but also for the entire Canadian economy in the long run, since the links forged by foreign students last for very long periods of time. Those students who come here to work for Ph. D. degrees in economics, accounting, engineering, medical science, who

June 12, 1986
Federal-Provincial fiscal arrangements
come here to specialize, very often go back to their native countries and after a number of years, those men and women are appointed to leading positions, and this creates bonds of frindship and technological relations, which often are reflected in increased trade relations. And these statistics that have been very seriously compiled by the International Student and International Stature group which submitted its brief, although the statistics that were provided to us indicate that foreign students in Canada, even on a strictly economic level, bring significant net benefits for the services provided by our colleges and universities.
Actually, we are provided with figures that are very telling, because the marginal costs incurred on account of foreign students in our Canadian universities total $160 million, while tuition fees required from them account for $100 million, which leaves a net benefit of some $60 million, not including economic benefits derived from the fact that many hundreds, a few thousand students must find lodging, rent appartments, buy food and clothes, pay for their transportation and so on and so forth, and it has been determined that the economic spinoffs from foreign students in Canada would total $284 million in 1986, and there is tremendous concern that the higher tuition fees that would almost inevitably result from Bill C-96 if implemented will cause a significant decrease in the number of foreign students, because of the negative impact that this can have not only on our universities, but but also on the whole economy both in the short and in the long run.
Mr. Speaker, I could mention also the concerns and proposals expressed by the Canadian Nurses Association. This group appeared before our Legislative Committee to underline the negative effects Bill C-96 will have on the quality of health care in this country. It reported for instance that because of the savings which had to be made since the 1981-82 economic crisis, hospital staff had to be cut, and it is now difficult for a reduced staff to provide Canadians with the top quality health care which they have a right to expect. It reminded the committee that health care costs cannot be tied only to inflation, because statistics indicate, as was confirmed by the Canadian Nurses Association, that the Canadian population is aging.
It reported for instance that in year 2030, people over 65 years of age will represent 20 per cent of the population; it emphasized that although life expectancy is improving, people who reach a more advanced age are more frequently ill, need increased health care, which affects health care costs. Quite often this increase in the number of patients-still according to the Canadian Nurses Association-should be taken into account when considering the increase in health care costs. The same thing applies both to hospital insurance and to medicare, something the Canadian Nurses Association made abundantly clear when dealing with the potential negative effects of Bill C-96.
Mr. Speaker, not only professionnal groups appeared before our Committee. There was also the province of Manitoba. That province submitted a major brief; two of its Ministers
gave evidence and, in each case, what was emphasized was the negative impact of this Bill C-96 which is not, but not at all along the lines indicated in the propaganda booklet published last May by the Department of Finance to try and convince the Canadian people that Bill C-96 would have no significant impact either on health care or the quality of post-secondary education. If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from the brief submitted by the province of Manitoba. I quote:
It states that the Government of Manitoba believes that passage of this Bill will lead Canada in the wrong direction. First, it suggests that Canadians should devote a declining share of our economy to health and higher education services at a time when all forecasts show that needs are clearly increasing and evidence suggests that our country can afford to maintain and improve our services.
Second, it represents a significant and unilateral withdrawal of federal responsibility at a time when the federal presence is still needed and its role has been reaffirmed as recently as 1984, with all-Party support for passage of the Canada Health Act.
Finally, Bill C-96 passes federal burdens on to provinces at a time when provincial fiscal circumstances are particularly strained and federal fiscal circumstances are expected to show marked improvement.

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from that analysis that not only the professional groups but also the Provinces have clearly indicated that if Bill C-96 is passed, it will merely mean a transfer of the burden to the Provinces, the Bill suggesting that Canadians should give less than at present to health services. Besides, the passing of Bill C-96 would be inconsistent with the unanimous acceptance by all parties in this House of the health legislation in 1984.
Mr. Speaker, the New Brunswick legislature has unanimously passed a resolution introduced by Mr. McKenna-


Gabriel Fontaine: Is there a physician in the House?
[Editor's note: And a Member having taken ill.]


Mr. Speaker:: Would someone please call the nurse quickly. Will the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) take the Chair for one moment, please.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McKinnon):: Resuming debate.
[ Translation]


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, what has just happened, apparently one of the Government Members is not feeling well and this is why the proceedings have been interrupted for a few seconds but a physician seems to be in attendance. We may now carry on.
June 12, 1986

Mr. Speaker, we were saying that Bill C-96 is affecting the financing of health and postsecondary programs and the Provinces will be hurt by this Bill, since the tax burden will be transferred to them.
Mr. Speaker, the reason why I am speaking at length on the positions of service and professional groups as well as on the positions of the Provinces is that the Government has told us on many occasions that lengthy consultations had been held with the Provinces on Bill C-96. Members on the Government side told us a number of times that Bill C-96 had been the subject of lengthy consultations with the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I do not know what transpired during these consultations, but it so happens that all our documentation indicates that the provinces were all opposed to Bill C-96 because of the unilateral manner in which it was presented and introduced.
We have seen what the province of Manitoba told us. And here is what the province of New Brunswick tells us, not just through its Government but in a motion adopted unanimously by the New Brunswick legislature, a motion presented by the Leader of the Liberal Party in that province, Mr. McKenna, but nevertheless adopted by the entire legislature, which means adopted by the Conservative majority existing today in New Brunswick.
The motion says: "Whereas the Government of Canada has announced that the growth rate of equalization payments made under the Established Programs Financing Act will be reduced starting in 1986; whereas this reduction in the growth rate will cost New Brunswick $9 million this year and an estimated total of $160 million by 1990-91; whereas New Brunswick lacks the economic resources to absorb such a loss; Resolved, that the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick shall ask the Government of Canada to reconsider its unilateral decision and restore Established Programs Financing to the level agreed upon in 1982; and that the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick shall ask the Government to start negotiations with the provinces aimed at reaching an agreement on the level of financing to be provided under the Established Programs Financing Act for the years 1987-1988 and following."
Mr. Speaker, this is a very clear statement made not just by the Government of New Brunswick but by the entire legislature of New Brunswick, by all the parties represented therein. It is a resolution that clearly says this was a unilateral decision by the federal Government. And it directly contradicts what has been said by many Members of the majority party in this House. They would have us believe that there were consultations, and they even implied that although the decision was made by the Minister of Finance, it was practically with the consent of the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, there are other provinces that announced their decision and expressed their reactions to Bill C-96. For instance, Ontario, whose Premier said, and I quote:
Federal-Provincial fiscal arrangements
"This reduction in funds provided the provinces will translate into a reduction in services. There will be fewer hospital beds". The Premier of Ontario said it will affect the quality of postsecondary education and health care services. The Treasurer of Ontario said the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec, in a paper presented at a conference of Finance Ministers, and also through comments made publicly by the Quebec Minister of Finance, Gerard D. Levesque, said it was unfair to the provinces and that it was an additional tax burden that was being transferred to them.
Mr. Speaker, Nova Scotia, through its Minister of Finance, clearly indicated it was against Bill C-96. Remember, this comes not from a Liberal, but from a Conservative Minister.
If we look at Manitoba, with a New Democratic majority, Nova Scotia with a Conservative majority, New Brunswick with a Conservative Government, Quebec with a Liberal Government and Ontario with a Liberal Government, we see that irrespective of their political stripe, the provincial Governments are unanimous in saying that Bill C-96 will affect the quality of the services in question and that they object to reopening negotiations on fiscal arrangements between Canada and the provinces before the expiry of these arrangements on March 31, 1987. Therefore the central Government is unilaterally breaking a contract with the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, quite a number of statements have been made in the course of this debate which is now in the last stage, and among other things, either directly or indirectly, either knowingly or unknowingly, it has been suggested that health care costs- coming under a public and universal system as they do-are very high, so much so that they compromise Canada's economic ability to compete.
Mr. Speaker, I want to quote somebody else because I made the same kind of suggestions in earlier debates, so if you will allow me I will repeat the statement made before the committee by Manitoba Health Minister Desjardins, as follows:

The suggestion that reductions can be made to transfer payments in support of health and higher education services must be viewed within the context of the hardship that will be faced by provincial citizens and the success which this country has achieved providing universal health care when compared to our neighbour to the south.
In the early 1980s, Canada was spending approximately 7.9 per cent of its Gross National Product to support health services. During this period of time the United States was spending approximately 10 per cent of its Gross National Product on health services. This at a time when approximately 35 million people were without health benefits. When we compare ourselves to the United States, Canada has achieved a remarkable level of success and it has done so primarily by the leadership and control that is inherent in the provincial funding structure.
14316

June 12, 1986
Federal-Provincial fiscal arrangements [Translation]
This, Mr. Speaker, is the kind of argument which Members of the majority Party, the Progressive Conservative Government, should consider carefully, anxious as they always are to draw parallels with the United States and set them up as an example. Is that what the Progressive Conservative Government would like to do? For all intents and purposes, set the financing of these health and post-secondary education programs in such a context that the quality of services no longer exists, that services be no longer readily accessible, that the provinces have no choice but to levy user fees or extra charges so as to copy the American system? We can see that the American system is a more severe drain on the economy than is the case in Canada. Besides, although the United States spend close to 2 per cent more of their gross national product on health care, 35 million Americans cannot afford to buy insurance and have no coverage of any kind.
Mr. Speaker, the Progressive Conservative Government must be reminded of these facts because during the election campaign their leader said, hand over heart, that social programs are a sacred trust, that we must not tamper with them. And yet, barely a few months after the advent of the Conservative regime, the same Prime Minister openly contradicts what he said during the election campaign, conveniently forgets all about his own solemn commitments, and simply lets his Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) introduce Bill C-96 which shifts the tax load over to the provinces and may very well lower the quality of essential services offered to the people.
Mr. Speaker, I could also quote other passages from the presentation of the Manitoba Health Minister, but since our time is limited, I would like to deal with other important aspects of Bill C-96.
I have said a lot more about health care than about postsecondary education, except for the matter of foreign students, but the representatives of educational services also reminded us that post-secondary education financing in Canada was facing considerable problems and that, since we are going through a technological revolution, this was not the time to reduce the financing of this crucial aspect of Canadian activity, namely our universities, colleges and specialized teaching institutions. The result of Bill C-96 will not be simply to transfer the deficit of the Federal Minister of Finance to the Provincial Ministers, which would be serious enough, but the real effects of this Bill will be felt in the longer term, because the difficulty which our universities, colleges and specialized teaching institutions will have in recruiting qualified teachers, in keeping the qualified teachers they already have and in developing or purchasing high technology material will put them in a very precarious position, and the Government should not try to suggest that it will be possible to change the direction of post-secondary education by asking the Lord to develop the minds of Canadian men and women. I think that
people will need to be reasonably well-off to develop their intellectual faculties. Adequate financing of post-secondary education is a vital requirement for the future of this country, and I do not understand how the majority opposite can maintain that an $8 million cut-back in transfers to community colleges, universities and hospitals will not affect the quality of services, especially in the field of post-secondary education. Mr. Speaker, everyone remembers the attitude of the Members who are now sitting to your right when this House was asked in the past to agree to specific proposals to fight inflation. There were even advertisements in the newspapers saying that, if elected, the Conservative Government would bring back the situation to what it had been before. And yet, the 6-and 5-per cent program was implemented after lengthy consultation and it worked, for inflation has now abated after hovering at that time around 10, 11 per cent. Public surveys, informed observers, everybody was asking for concrete action against inflation. The federal Government of the day took up its responsibilities, the results are now known and they benefit all citizens. But why have double standards? Why did they make so much fuss at the time about a measure that was to last two years only and was designed to solve a specific problem that impacted negatively on every worker and every public and private body in the land? The Conservatives used all kinds of arguments to try and stop a piece of legislation that was needed, and now they introduce cuts in order not to solve a problem but to shift the burden elsewhere.
This is why we fought so long and so hard on second reading, this is why we tried to have as many witnesses as possible appear before the committee.
Unfortunately, the Government used its majority to limit the number of days for hearing witnesses. But all those who appeared, without one single exception, pointed to the negative impact of Bill C-96.
Mr. Speaker, on the education side, a number of witnesses drew the attention of Members on the impact of bill C-96.
Mr. Speaker, over these last few weeks, we heard the views of men and women from all over Canada. People directly involved in the delivery of health care or education services at the university or college level appeared before us and said: Beware, do not pass this legislation. Before adopting it, if you feel that it is absolutely essential, hold consultations to see how the current quality of services could be maintained, how the money currently used could be spent in a different way, so that we may not only maintain, but improve the quality of services, and above all, make adequate services more readily available to a whole category of the population, especially senior citizens whose number is increasing and who possibly need health care more in keeping with to their needs.
But no, the Government has decided to act quickly. It has decided to transfer its problems to others, which has persuaded the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to state, in a speech before a group of British Columbia scholars, that the cuts in post-secondary education would be a disaster for the quality of teaching. And I share the concerns expressed by the Chief
June 12, 1986

Justice of the Supreme Court, because they are the same concerns which we have heard from the witnesses who have appeared before our legislative committee. And the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who is certainly impartial, who does not have to toe the line of any political party, has confirmed the findings of other observers, namely, that excessive cuts in post-secondary education financing would have major economic effects and will also impact negatively on the quality of teaching in our specialized schools.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that these many testimonies should convince the Government to pause and review its position, because contrary to what that small propaganda booklet published by the Department of Finance wanted us to believe, for instance, that transfer payments would continue to increase... Mr. Speaker, we have never argued that transfer payments would not increase. What we have said, and rightfully so, and which have been confirmed right and left is that the rate of growth of the transfers have been decreased, to such an extent that it will represent to the Federal Government, for fiscal year 1990-91 alone, $2 billion. There are people somewhere who will have to pay for that! Who are these people?
Mr. Speaker, I should like to share with you what this will mean for each of the Canadian provinces.
Newfoundland is not a province with an extensive fiscal capacity. From fiscal years 1986-87 up to 1991-92, the cumulative effect of Bill C-96 will amount a loss of $180 million.
Mr. Speaker, to Ontario and Quebec, $180 million is a lot of money. But to Newfoundland, it is a huge sum. Some people with whom I was discussing this matter told me that teachers in St. John's University in Newfoundland may be lost simply because the University may no longer compete with other universities in Canada or in the United States in terms of the salaries offered. God knows if the province of Newfoundland needs-like all the rest of Canada, but that province particularly because of the developments to come in a hopefully near future in the oil area-a highly qualified manpower coming straight from those universities; but those developments will of course be affected by the cuts in the transfers from the federal Government to the provinces; $180 million for Newfoundland.
For the province of Prince Edward Island, which is a very small province, but with a rather limited fiscal capacity-
For the Province of Prince Edward Island, the cumulative effect of Bill C-96 from 1986-87 to 1991-92 will be $40 million. That is a lot of money to the Province of Prince Edward Island.
For the Province of Nova Scotia, the cumulative effect of Bill C-96 from 1986-87 to 1991-92 represents $271 million. That is a lot of money to the Province of Nova Scotia.
Federal-Provincial fiscal arrangements
I cannot understand why the brochure of the Department of Finance indicates that Bill C-96 will not have a great deal of effect on of post-secondary education or health services. I can say that for the Minister of Finance for Nova Scotia, $271 million is a lot of money. Someone will have to pay that money. If we cannot find anyone who will replace those dollars, the quality of services will be affected and nurses and teachers will lose their jobs.
For the Province of New Brunswick, in the same period of time Bill C-96 will have a cumulative effect of $220 million. As is the case with Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, that is a lot of money to the Minister of Finance of New Brunswick. I wonder why Hon. Members from New Brunswick have voted for the Bill. Their constituents will have to pay $220 million, and that is a lot of money. We are not even sure if the only solution the Government will find will be to cut the services. If the Government has to do that, it will be a disaster for post-secondary education and health services.
[ Translation]
For the province of Quebec, the cumulative effect of Bill C-96, based on the larger population-since all the figures I am giving you are on a per capita basis and vary according to the number of citizens in each province-amounts for the same period, to $2 billion. It was indeed with good reason that the Quebec Minister of Finance as well as his Ontario counterpart, with whom I will deal in a few moments, made rather strong statements against Bill C-96.
I recently had the opportunity to meet with the Minister of Finance in Montreal, and he asked me if Bill C-96 had been passed or what the chances were that its implementation might be postponed till a year later to allow for broader consultations. I told him that it was being examined by the Legislative Committee and I did not know what was about to happen, but I can see today that at the Legislative Committee's stage, Government Members defended the status quo, in other words the contents of Bill C-96, and today, for technical reasons, Mr. Speaker, you rejected the amendments I had suggested. If the Government had agreed to endorse those amendments, since it was a "money bill" as they say, those amendments could have been tabled and supported. However, the Government majority refused to do so. To the people of Quebec, that would mean a shortfall of $2 billion for the fiscal years 1986-1987 to 19911992. On a yearly basis, the amounts would increase gradually from $82 million to $2 billion by the final year.
Mr. Speaker-

For the Province of Ontario, the cumulative effect of Bill C-96 from 1986-87 to 1991-92 is almost $3 billion. One could say that the Province of Ontario is the richest province in Canada and can afford to raise taxes. However, if the Government of Ontario is forced to increase taxes, the federal Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) will simply have transferred his problem to his provincial counterpart.

June 12, 1986
Federal-Provincial fiscal arrangements
It could be argued that provinces like Ontario have the fiscal capacity to raise $3 billion over a five-or six-year period. However, if they do that, it will just confirm what we have said since the beginning, which is that the federal Minister of Finance has transferred his problem to his provincial counterparts. For the other provinces that do not have the fiscal capacity to raise the money through income taxes, sales taxes or any other form of taxation, the result may be a lower level of services in health and post-secondary education.
For the Province of Manitoba, the cumulative effect of Bill C-96 for the same period will be close to $340 million. I would like to hear my colleagues from Manitoba rise to tell the House their point of view on how the Province of Manitoba will be able to finance this $340-million shortfall. The Minister of Education for the Province of Manitoba said that this $340 million represents a big part of the budget for the province's services. Unforunately I cannot find the citation, but I recall that the Minister said that that $300 million represents the cost of operating the universities in that province for one year. That is a lot of money. Someone will have to pay that money. Will it be the students, the families of the students, the taxpayers or the deficit? Only the future will tell us what will happen.
The Province of Saskatchewan will lose $320 million, about the same as Manitoba. With the Farm Bill that has been adopted in the U.S. which pays huge subsidies to U.S. farmers, the international price of wheat is lower than the cost of production of wheat in Saskatchewan. I do not know where the Conservative Government of that province will find the tax base from which to raise $300 million in taxation just to replace what it was supposed to receive from the federal Govrnment through the fiscal arrangements which had been accepted for the years from 1982 to 1987.
As a result of Bill C-96, the Province of Alberta will be losing $743 million, along with the oil crisis. I do not know where it will find the money to replace what the Conservative Government in Ottawa decided to do in cutting the transfer payments for post-secondary education. I am sure the Conservative Government of Alberta is not very happy with Bill C-96. It will have to make very tough decisions in that province.
The Province of British Columbia will lose $900 million as a result of Bill C-96. The amount of money for 1986-87 is $36 million, but the situation faced by British Columbia is the same as that faced by the other provinces; it rises with the years.
Every province will face very difficult problems. The cumulative effect of Bill C-96 from fiscal year 1986-87 to fiscal year 1991-92 will amount to a total of almost $8 billion for all of Canada. What do these figures mean? Only the future will tell. I am sure someone will have to foot the bill.
The federal Government made a unilateral decision not to pay. It changed the rules of the game unilaterally and
transferred the problems of the federal Minister of Finance to the Ministers of Finance of each and every province. It is unfair. It is not good for Canadian unity. It is not good for post-secondary education. It is not good for Canadian health services.
The Bill should be defeated in the House, or at least the Minister of Finance should think twice before pushing it through third reading stage.

Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance and the Government absolutely insist on adopting Bill C-96 without changing its effective date or adding a sunset clause, this Bill will result in an enormous injustice for Canadian provinces, but also and especially for Canadian men and women who will have to foot the bill one way or another, for it is unthinkable that in 1986 and the years thereafter, Canada should spend a smaller proportion of its Gross National Product as years go by, and that we could find ourselves by the end of this decade in a situation where all our hospital facilities will need millions of dollars in repair, something we can feel already. When we talk to hospital administrators, what do we hear?
They say that capital expenditures have to be made and that they need more operating capital to maintain the quality of hospital facilities, not to build extensions or install new carpeting, but only to maintain the current structure.
We have read about in newspapers or seen on TV hospitals with leaking roofs and without any money to repair them. And the federal Government thinks that it can cut $8 billion over a five or six year period in the growth of transfer payments without serious consequences, that it can tighten the belt in all sectors while maintaining the quality of services.
Mr. Speaker, the Government should not dream in colour and think that the considerable impact of Bill C-96 ... Mr. Speaker, some people might get the impression that we are deliberately wasting the time of the House by talking on and on. Well, Mr. Speaker, the only way we on the Opposition benches can draw the attention of the public to the harmful consequences of this measure is precisely to do what we are doing now, and to stress the fact that, because it is not easy since people do not always fully appreciate the secondary effects of certain Bills-


An Hon. Member:: An uncaring majority.


Raymond Garneau: That's it. And Government Members did try to rush the committee proceedings. They tried to sell a bill of goods with a small booklet which contains nothing but halftruths. In fact, the consequences are far-ranging.
With respect to our health care system in Canada, some people may think it is rather expensive but it accounts for a smaller share of our gross national product as compared to the United States. Where we are ahead in Canada is that our system covers everybody, rich and poor alike, whereas in the United States, according to the 1980 figures provided by the Manitoba Minister of Health-just imagine what the Figures
June 12, 1986

would be today-35 million Americans did not benefit from any kind of health or hospital services. At least we in Canada extend coverage to one and all, rich or poor. And still the universality of the system and the way it is managed are such that it costs less in terms of our economy, 2 per cent less in 1980. I would not be surprised if I heard that the gap has since grown wider.
In the area of postsecondary education, one can very well refer to high costs, but those who have tried to gain admission to an American university, either Harvard, Columbia or those in California, realize what the fees mean for a student, while in Canada we have established a public and universal system which allows in fact any person with the necessary qualifications and the desire for education, access to university. However, governments should not be so restricted in their awareness of present necessities to believe that we could keep up the quality of those services by shifting the tax burden to the provinces and reducing the rate of growth of transfer payments by up to $8 billion.
Mr. Speaker, if we analyze the decisions taken by this Government with respect to taxation since it came to power, we find that this concern about the deficit did not bear too hard on them when they granted a tax rebate to taxpayers who made huge profits on the sale of shares and real estate, or what we call capital gains.
Mr. Speaker, there was money for that, and for about the same period it involved nearly $5 billion.
How is it that the federal Government had money to spend on such a large tax benefit to a very small number of people who are affluent enough to make investments that yield capital gains? How is it that the minister of Finance had money for that while, in the same breath, he was suggesting they have no money to maintain the contract that was in a way signed with the provinces?
They have money for tax benefits to the rich, but they have no money for hospital care, no money for medicare, no money for post-secondary education. But they have money for tax benefits to the most affluent in our society.
In that context, it is my view that Bill C-96 is absolutely unfair. It seems to me this Government has lopsided priorities. If at least they were consistent. Very often they have talked about the deficit, but if they were consistent, it seems to me they would follow one line and refrain from fiscal provisions that extend tax benefits to the most affluent in our society. If they have no money for universities and hospitals, then they should have none for the others either, since their deficit theology should apply in both cases.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-96 will create havoc in the financial structure and balance of the Provinces. Bill C-96 will create havoc in the financial planning of universities, colleges and hospitals.
Mr. Speaker, certainly Bill C-96 also will have a negative impact either on consumers, users of health services or those
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
who avail themselves of university services. The impact of Bill C-96 will hit those people through increased tuition fees, increased costs for semi-private rooms, and perhaps certain provinces will have to introduce extra-billing.
Mr. Speaker, in my view, there are enough reasons for the Government to withdraw Bill C-96 and immediately undertake serious negotiations with the provinces in order that, if indeed financial circumstances are tight, they find ways to ensure that this tightening and the amendments can be agreed upon in consultation rather than by forging ahead unilaterally as they are doing, forcing provinces to find ways of funding by themselves post-secondary education.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest to the Government to put an end immediately to the discussion of this legislation and enter into negotiations with the Provinces in order that, as soon as the fiscal arrangements come to an end on March 31st, 1987, negotiations are under way on an alternative that would be more equitable, not only in terms of balanced provincial finance but also for universities, community colleges, hospitals and users of health services and postsecondary education.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Before I recognize the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Orlikow) it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Jepson)-Abortion- Therapeutic abortion committee procedures-Death of Ottawa woman; the Hon. Member for Vancouver Kingsway (Mr. Waddell)-Atomic Energy Control Board-Appointment inquiry, b) Request for reconsideration; and the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Public Service-Pensions-Government Position b) Inquiry if pensioners were represented during negotiations.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal-Post
[Stage Direction]
June 12, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the service programs now provided for the people of Canada in the field of health and post-secondary education are programs which have been developed over the last 40 years through cooperation between the federal Government and the provinces. Federal Governments, both Liberal and Conservative, were the main promoters of the program. The federal Government promoted the programs and got them accepted by all the provinces by assuring them that the federal Government would meet 50 per cent of the cost of providing the services for all the provinces but, even more than that amount for the have-not provinces. Because of the establishment of those programs most Canadians have had the assurance that their health needs, whether by way of seeing doctors or by staying in hospitals, would not create a tremendous financial burden on them even if they were sick for a lengthy period of time. The programs covered the needs of all Canadians, poor, middle income and wealthy.
Similarly, Mr. Speaker, our post-secondary education programs were developed and expanded so that a substantial proportion of Canadians who wanted to get an education beyond high school, which was all that was available to most Canadians until the end of World War II, could do so. The number of Canadians who attended our universities and community colleges increased greatly. That process changed pretty drastically when the former Liberal Government indicated some years ago that it was not prepared to continue in the joint funding of post-secondary education or health programs, that it was putting a limit of 6 per cent and 5 per cent on the increase in the funding which the federal Government would provide. The program was further adversely affected when the then Liberal Goverment brought in its established programs financing proposal. That federal Government made it clear that it was no longer prepared to contribute on a 50 per cent basis, and was going to limit the increases it provided.
What we have in Bill C-96 is a further decision, and a disastrous decision, by the present Conservative Government that it will again reduce the funding that will go to the provinces by some $7 billion from this year until the year 1990-91. It has been argued by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and by other Conservative Members that the provinces will be getting more in the next few years than they got this year. That is true, Mr. Speaker, but the provinces will get substantially less than they would have under the agreements we had up until now.
This country like other countries is facing financial difficulties. The world-wide recession has meant that while costs have gone up revenues for Governments have not increased in the same way. We are not surprised that the federal Government decided that it would have to look at what it was doing, particularly at the support for funding for post-secondary education and health services.
We are not suggesting for a moment that changes would not have been made. We are not only opposed to the fact that the provinces will get $7 billion less. We are also opposed to the fact that the decision embodied in Bill C-96 was a unilateral decision made against the advice of studies done for the federal Government over the opposition of virtually every province. What is even more hurtful is that the provinces which will suffer the most are those which are the have not provinces of the country: Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, and Manitoba. Who knows, given the collapse of the price of oil and natural gas, we may see the Province of Alberta as a have not province in the not too distant future.
The federal Government is cutting back on the funding and support which it will provide. That means that the provinces will either have to find new money-and most of the provinces have even more financial problems than the federal Government-or they will be required to cut their services or increase the cost to individuals who want to attend a post-secondary institution or need medical care. Let us look at what the effect of this will be on our universities. I will quote a sentence from the chairperson and Chief Executive Officer of Northern Telecom, one of the few companies in Canada which has devoted a great deal of its own money to research and development in new products which will provide jobs for Canadians. Walter Light said:
It is not only the quality and quantity of our engineers that is crucial to our future services. It is also the quantity and quality of our writers, our philosophers, our social scientists, our political scientists, our psychologists, our historians ... All disciplines are important to our future.
All those disciplines and others will be adversely affected in a major way by the decision of the federal Government to cut back on the funding which is incorporated in this Bill.
As I have already indicated, the proposal to shift the cost burden to the provinces will affect most adversely and to the greatest disadvantage the poorer provinces which receive equalization payments and simply do not have the fiscal capacity for sharply increased revenue without distorting their whole tax structure.
When I say that, I am not speaking from what I consider to be a particularly politically partisan point of view. In February of this year Dr. Vail of the Canadian Medical Association spoke about the health system as these cut-backs go into force. He said:
We will have one quality of health care in the rich provincess and second or third rate services in the poor provinces. The dream of Canadians of having access to reasonably comparable health services, no matter where they live or travel, appears to have been abandoned by the Government of Canada.
In 1981, in talking about the proposal which was implemented by the then federal Liberal Government, a former Conservative Finance Minister in the Province of Manitoba said:
In our view, too much effort and too much goodwill over too many decades have gone into the creation of these arrangments-
June 12, 1986

He was talking about the arrangements to finance postsecondary education and health services.
-for them to be risked, or even sacrificed, for some short- term, short-sighted federal budgetary or political advantage.
I could not have put it better myself. Indeed, in dealing with that very same proposal by the then Liberal Government to reduce its share of the funding for these programs, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said the following in a speech on March 23, 1983:
The provinces are now moving into a deficit position; a position which will make it more difficult for them to finance this shift in spending. That is not cooperative federalism. That is predatory federalism and it will not and cannot work in this country.
What has happened in the four years since the Minister made that speech? The problem has not changed. The only thing that has changed is that the present Minister of Finance was a leading spokesman for the Opposition at that time.
I would like to put on the record an election promise of the Conservative Party. In the 1984 election campaign the members of the Progressive Conservative Party stated the Party's views on financing health and education very forthrightly. They said:
We are committed to sustaining the current federal financial commitment according to the formula set out in the 1977 Agreement-
That promise was made just two years ago and they are now bringing in legislation to wipe out the formula set out in the 1977 agreement. The end result of that is that through the provisions of Bill C-96 they will reduce the over-all federal level of spending in both health and secondary education to 36 per cent from the present 43 per cent.
Our health service needs are growing and becoming more necessary and more important rather than less, thereby becoming a necessity on which we could spend less money. The population of Canada is aging. I am sure that Members know that older people require more visits to doctors, stays in hospitals and prescription drugs than do young people.
In addition to the problem of aging we have the problem of poverty. There is not a Member of Parliament from any province of the country who is not aware that the number of people in every city in the country who are utilizing the services of voluntary groups and agencies which provide food baskets and second-hand clothing for the unemployed and those who have not been able to find jobs is increasing. It is no longer just the poorly educated or native people who are going to these voluntary agencies. The middle class, people who have owned homes but lost their jobs and are now losing their homes because they cannot meet the mortgage payments, are turning up at these voluntary agencies in increasing numbers. We know that the poor are much more likely to use the health care system.
A study done recently in Montreal said that while residents of Montreal's most favourite areas enjoy a life expectancy unsurpassed by any country in the world, the life expectancy in
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
the least favourite areas are more typical of Third World countries or about the same as those enjoyed by the average Canadian some 30 years ago. The study found a marked link between income and illness. People in the low-income brackets were ill much more often and for longer periods of time than those in the middle and upper-income brackets. I have to say that I find it shocking that a Government with 57 of its Members from Quebec would consent to a cut-back in health services which will be the inevitable result of the reduction in funding by the Government.
Are we spending too much on health? Some people have made that allegation. They say we can afford these cuts because we have been too generous. Nothing could be further from the truth. According to OECD studies, Canada is nowhere near the top spender in these areas. In a 1983 paper produced for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development entitled "The Growth of Social Expenditures", Canada is ranked tenth out of 18 reporting countries on per capita spending in U.S. dollars in 1981 on social expenditures at $1,028. The U.S. was seventh at $1,196. Canada is twelveth out of 18 in the percentage of gross domestic product allocated to social expenditure. The U.S. is thirteenth at virtually the same percentage. We are not spending too much money yet the Government is proposing in this Bill to cut back substantially on what we do spend.
Let me just take a moment to go back to the problem of our universities and their inability to conduct the research required in every other industrialized country. When the Conservative Party was in opposition it accepted the advice given to it by researchers in industry and the universities that Canada was doing much too little. Of the OECD countries rated, Canada was second to last in the percentage of GNP devoted to scientific research and development. We were spending substantially less than 2 per cent when other countries were spending 2.5 per cent or more. The Conservative Party, when in opposition, promised that if it formed the Government it would aim to get very quickly to the 2.5 per cent level. Yet we have seen the exact opposite. Partly because of its fixation with getting the deficit down, partly because of a blind faith that the private sector will fill the gap, the Conservative Party has come up with a program which on paper seems to indicate that we will reach the goal of 2.5 per cent in the next few years. However, the proposal is based on a major fallacy, that is, while the Government holds the line or cuts back on its research funding, somehow the private sector can be persuaded to increase substantially its contribution and support. There was a conference in Winnipeg this week and a number of leaders in the scientific community, including-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gottselig):: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


David Orlikow: I wonder if I could have another moment or two?


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: No.

June 12, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gottselig):: I am at the pleasure of the House. Is there unanimous consent to let the Hon. Member finish?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: No.


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


David Orlikow: I thank the Hon. Members who-


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am willing to give unanimous consent if the Hon. Member gives at least some indication that he will not be too long.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gottselig):: Do I take it there is unanimous consent to let the Hon. Member finish?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gottselig):: Two minutes.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, let me conclude by saying that we do not believe these reductions proposed by the Government are necessary. We do not believe that the funds necessary to maintain and improve these programs cannot be found. The federal Government did not need to spend more than $1 billion for the bank bail-out. It did not have to give more than $2 billion in capital gains exemptions and other tax breaks which favour the healthy and wealthy. It gave more than $1.6 billion in corporate income tax reductions and another $3.3 billion to increase defence spending by 35 per cent by 1990-91. We believe a just and fair tax system would provide the money necessary, not only to maintain post-secondary education and health programs at present levels, but to provide more than enough to bring them up to the standard in many of the developed countries of this world.


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


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-96. Unfortunately, attempts have been made, and are still being made, to delay unduly the adoption of this Bill, despite the fact that the Bill was reported back from the legislative committee without amendment and with no other recommendation except that Bill C-96 be adopted as tabled on second reading and examined in the legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker, earlier, I was listening to the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) who was trying to confuse Canadians. He was talking about capital gains and drawing a parallel with Bill C-96.
Mr. Speaker, we know that the purpose of Bill C-96 is simply to reduce the growth of transfers to the provinces. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides and the previous speaker, however, would have us look at this from the perspective of... Excuse me, Mr. Speaker, but I was distracted by the Opposition ... from the perspective of medical problems and problems for post-secondary education, while we know perfectly well that post-secondary education and health care are strictly matters of provincial jurisdiction. My hon. colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) is in the House. He has jurisdiction over health and welfare at the national level, but what happens in our hospitals, whether they are in Manitoba, Quebec or Prince Edward Island, is strictly a provincial matter. Mr. Speaker, the Opposition is trying to steer us into dangerous waters by telling us that it is essential that Bill C-96 be amended.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has been discussing with the provinces since November 1984. Since then, he has agreed with the Provincial Ministers of Finance on a slower rate of growth for provincial transfers, even though these transfers will increase by $1 billion a year is during the next five years. Mr. Speaker, $1 billion more a year is not a decrease, but the opposite. I think that this has not been sufficiently emphasized.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, when we came to power in September 1984, there was an enormous national debt, and there still is. This is the responsibility of the previous Liberal Government. Thanks to the previous Government, we have a national debt of over $200 billion, and when we came to power, our deficit amounted to nearly $39 billion a year. We were able to reduce this deficit. For the first time in twenty years, Mr. Speaker, our annual deficit has gone down and it will continue to do so. We have cut back expenditures and federal programs. We have set a 3 per cent ceiling on increases. However, in the case of provincial transfers, there will be an increase of 5 per cent.
This shows that we recognize the importance of provincial transfers. We recognize the importance of post-secondary education and hospitals. I believe that we must fulfil the mandate for which we were elected, which was to provide a healthy administration of public finances and reduce the annual deficit and the national debt.


George Albert Proud: Not on the backs of senior citizens!


Pierre H. Vincent: Our mandate was also to create jobs and to cooperate with the provinces. We have achieved all that. Yet, today, when we are debating Bill C-96 which we have been discussing with the provinces since November 1984, the Members opposite are trying to say that we are not doing our duty. As for me, Mr. Speaker, I believe that if the previous Liberal Government had done its duty during its twenty years in power, we would not be having such problems today. You know, Mr. Speaker, when a government tries to remain in power, it spends indiscriminately. I remember that during the last election campaign in my great riding of Trois-Rivieres,
June 12, 1986

promises worth millions of dollars were made. The previous Liberal Government tried to buy votes in Trois-Rivieres but failed because the people were fed up with this wasting of money throughout the country. Canadians in Trois-Rivieres, in Quebec, in Canada, want a sound administration and this is what we have been giving them during the past two years and will continue to give.
I hear the Member from the Montreal area making comments, Mr. Speaker.


George Albert Proud: I am listening.


Pierre H. Vincent: We do not need millions but a sound administration and I think that Canadians understand it quite well.
Besides, Mr. Speaker, the legislative committee report does not propose any amendment to Bill C-96. But, unfortunately, the Opposition forgot to mention it. We should not forget when referring to the federal Government that it has always said it would not interfere at the provincial level. In other words, Mr. Speaker, we will not infringe on provincial jurisdiction. Hospitals as well as postseconday education come under provincial jurisdiction. To this day not a single province has said that transfer payments in a province or another could not be adjusted. Not a single one has said so.
I think we failed to emphasize that a little. Each province will have a decision to make on what it is going to do concerning hospitals, what it is going to do concerning post-secondary education, and that has not been sufficiently emphasized in my view. The federal Government is transferring funds in good faith to the provinces, and indeed it is acting in good faith. It is its own decision as a federal Government to transfer funds to the provinces, both for post-secondery education and health care, and the provinces are in no way accountable to the federal Government. They can do whatever they want with the money that is being transfered, and this is indeed the goal. I therefore find it hard to imagine how it can possibly be suggested that a slower growth of transfers to the provinces will automatically penalize post-secondary education or hospital care in the provinces. It is my view this is an attempt to mislead people.
In conclusion, it might be important to emphasize the excellent work done by the legislative committee which heard 18 groups, and to commend that committee for an excellent work done without any recommendation at variance with the Bill now before us. It is therefore my hope, Mr. Speaker, that Members in this House will give the Bill third reading as soon as possible in order that we move ahead in this House and that we stop delaying legislation that has to be passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very attentively, and that is as it should be, since with the passing of time, one gradually becomes more respectful of this House. I appreciated the tone of the Hon. Member's speech. In fact, we
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
ought to be very polite to the Hon. Member since as increasingly persistent rumours have it, he may be made a Minister this summer. So I appreciated the tone of his speech, and I think that even if my Whip is here in the House, it would be appropriate for me to wish him luck in a possible Cabinet shuffle. We don't think the shuffle will do much good, but we wish him luck just the same.
The Hon. Member said: We were elected and we have a mandate.
Well, if I said this once I've said it a thousand times, and some of my colleagues wonder whether I am not overdoing it. The fact is that the Canadian people, Quebecers and the people of Trois-Rivieres decided to elect, respectively 211 Members across Canada, 58 Members in Quebec, and the Hon. Member. So far so good. My leader said we do not question the wisdom of Canadians in deciding to change governments. The people of Canada changed governments to seek a new perspective for this country and they listened carefully to what the Hon. Members had to propose. The people of Canada were prepared to listen to what the Hon. Member's party had to propose as to a new message of hope.
But it seems to me the Hon. Member is confused about what the people decided, which is to listen to the new message brought by the man who is now our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), for I am a staunch supporter of democracy. But the people never voted for fewer social services. Surely the people never voted for a reduction of federal contributions and transfer payments to the provinces for medical care, universities and post-secondary education. Surely the people did not vote for such measures.
So I am in a predicament. I think the Hon. Member is quite right to say that they have been elected by the people. They delivered a message, but now it seems to me that you are giving a wrong interpretation to the message you got from Canadians. You did not tell the people of Canada, the Quebecers, or the Trois-Rivieres residents that cutting the deficit would mean, first, the reduction or cancellation of Old Age Security indexing. I must at this stage acknowledge the outstanding contribution of one of our colleagues, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (M. Malepart), our main critic in this area, that we all wholeheartedly support, as he readily admits, with our statements and speeches. I would like to ask a question to the distinguished Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent) who, and I hope that despite the strange looks I get I am not creating too much jealousy, if the rumors prove correct might become a Minister this summer.
I would not want to create any hard feelings, but I would very much like it if the Hon. Member told me again, and told the Canadian people, the Quebec people, and his constituents in Trois-Rivieres, whether or not there was confusion in the message of their party, because they are introducing in the House today, measures that Canadians certainly did not

June 12, 1986
Canada Pension Plan
expect. There was, no doubt, some misunderstanding somewhere. I am trying to reconcile this with an excellent speech that the Hon. Member made to defend something which, I must say, was very difficult to defend. Politics is not always easy. But when you are a bit of a fighter ... and I know what I am talking about because I have been here for 22 or 23 years. About my question-
My colleague says that I should nonetheless put a question. I could have used up the ten minutes by making comments and prevented my hon. colleague and friend from replying. There is something I do not understand. I do not understand how he can reconcile what his party said and promised during the election campaign with everything it has done since which seems to affect almost all groups of society in Canada and mostly the less fortunate or those most in need. Of all the people in our society, the sick, the senior citizens and the young are the most important. Those three groups appear to be hit the hardest by this Government.


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not have the experience and style of the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis to return his compliments. I thank him for his good words. I am sure he will accept mine.
Yet, I should like to make a point. I think that the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis was not entirely right when he said that the federal Government has reduced its contribution to social services as well as transfer payments to the provinces. Without playing on words or arguing semantics, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that all we are trying to do with Bill C-96 is to reduce the growth of transfer payments to the provinces. It is quite different from a reduction of transfer payments. We are talking about the growth of the amounts made available every year to the provinces. What we mean to do is to reduce its growth and not the basic amount. The proof of the matter is that the provinces will get $1 billion more per year over the next five years. The provinces will get $1 billion more per year. I suggest that the Opposition should not talk about a cut. I want to ensure that the Hon. Member and I understand each other. I know that in addition to being my colleague, he is a member of our profession and knows that words are important.
In reply to the question raised by the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis concerning our mandate and his assessment that we had singled out the poor, the aged and the young, I suggest that he has failed, unintentionally I am sure, to mention that for a number of years, the Canadian people has been asking the Government to set up a minimum income tax system in Canada. He has failed to mention that we announced in 1985 an amendment, effective January 1, 1986, providing for a minimum income tax which will affect Canadians in higher tax brackets who could benefit from tax shelters created by the previous Liberal Government. He has certainly failed to mention that.
He surely forgot about the R&D tax credit which, I am sure, Mr. Speaker, had been established by a well-intentioned previous Government, but which benefitted unduly some
companies, and once again corrected that. He definitely forgot to talk about it. And I could go on and on like that.
So, to answer the Hon. Member's question, I think people of this country gave us a clear mandate, and that is to provide a sound management at all levels. To this day, Mr. Speaker, the results are there to see in terms of job creation, the dollar, the interest rates, and we have reasons to be pleased as a Government of the work being done, and we have to ask the Opposition to stop delaying the steady progress of the business of the House and hindering the work of the Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: A very brief question from the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to come back to the growth of subsidies or payments and the accountability of the provinces not to the federal government but to their own constituents.
The Hon. Member surely knows that the Johnston Report indicated as one of the more important factors the fact that provinces had not followed the rate of increase in the federal government payments. Some provinces in fact receive more than they spend.
And when I speak of accountability I speak as a citizen of this country, like my colleague the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, and I mean this obligation Governments have to be accountable to their constituents. The provinces were expecting to get an increase already set by an agreement, but this Government is reducing the increase by 2 per cent, which affects-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), but it being 6 o'clock, pursuant to the order of Wednesday, June 11, 1986, the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as indicated in today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   CANADA PENSION PLAN
[Stage Direction]
PAYMENT OF BENEFITS TO VOLUNTARY WORKERS Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of paying Canada Pension Plan benefits to persons not making contributions to the Plan, and that such payment be in proportion to the time such persons dedicate to voluntary efforts in community social services.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my appreciation at the outset for this opportunity to speak to my motion for the recognition of volunteers. I am personally very happy that the motion was one which was drawn for early consideration in
June 12, 1986
[Stage Direction]
this part of the First Session of the Thirty-third Parliament. I am grateful to my good friend, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus), for seconding the motion to put it on the floor for debate this afternoon.
The question I am considering is recognition of the services provided by volunteers to Canadian society in a great diversity of ways. I want to consider what sort of recognition we Canadians might extend to these volunteers, and in particular the possibility that many of them who do not have the opportunity to earn Canada Pension Plan credits toward their retirement might be able to receive such credits and be the recipients of these benefits after retirement age. Through the Canada Pension Plan and under the direction and care of the Canadian Government, they might receive this recognition and, as a result, feel, in more ways than simply the recognition of their neighbours, the sense of their own personal fulfilment in carrying out these activities.
I might say that this matter of recognition of volunteers is a topic honoured more fully when they step into the breach than in the recognition on various occasions when volunteers' activities do receive that recognition in their communities and, to some extent, nationally. We are good at providing words of various sorts to tell people that what they have done for the community is of value. However, when we look at such documents as the report of the Parliamentary Committee on Pension Reform in the previous Parliament, we see no recognition of the role of volunteers in the way of opening up the possibilities of pension reform. When we look at the voluminous studies, the main documents and supporting volumes of the Macdonald Commission on Canadian union and its economic situation, we find as well no subtantial recognition of the role of volunteers. There is a certain sense, then, in which opening up this topic for consideration in this particular way is an innovation and represents a novelty in Canadian public policy. It is for that reason also that I appreciate the opportunity to support this motion this evening in this debate.
I want to consider several aspects of the motion. I want to consider the significant role played by volunteers in our communities. I want to give some consideration to the value of this service to our society. I think particularly of women, who are the larger group of those who do not find gainful employment in various circumstances, and who are active as volunteers, those persons for whom this particular proposal could be of value.
I want to give consideration as well to the point I have already made, that is the obligation society should feel toward volunteers and consequently why we should look to the Government to take up this proposal for recognition of volunteers by means of establishing the entitlement under the Canada Pension Plan. Let me say at the outset that I had the opportunity in March of 1985 to attend sessions in Saskatoon with my friend, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse). The session was held in conjunction with International Women's Week and involved a series of
Canada Pension Plan
presentations from organizations in the City of Saskatoon and in the Province of Saskatchewan. These people were active in volunteer activities of many sorts. I remember particularly a presentation from those persons who were active in the YWCA in that city. These were excellent presentations. They demonstrated the intellectual capacity, the social insight and the community responsibility of women in these various organizations.
My reaction to the presentations at one point was that here was a remarkable demonstration of the value of volunteer services and that this was something which surely must be recognized in our society. How might we do that? Since there was some discussion in these presentations as well about the needs of elderly women who did not have adequate income, thanks to the fact they were restricted to Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement alone, it was obvious that if their income was supplemented by means of Canada Pension Plan benefits, that would be of very great assistance to them. It was in that kind of context that the germ of this proposal came to me and we gave it some limited consideration at that time.
I want to say in expanding on the matter of the role of volunteers that I have thought about a variety of persons who are active in the community of Thunder Bay. These are persons who, in some cases, have had recognition on the national level. Others have been recognized on the community level by words and presentations of one sort or another. Some of these persons have had opportunities for gainful employment and the opportunity to earn Canada Pension Plan credits in the past. In other cases that is not true. I think of two persons immediately who were recognized since I was elected to Parliament in September of 1984.
Miss Gert Beadle received the Person's Award during the first month of my service here and Mr. Ed Lauzon was the recipient of the Lifestyle Award presented by the Department of National Health and Welfare in 1985. Miss Beadle is someone who became active rather late in life. She assisted women with the need for shelter, those who had to escape from their homes because of abuse. As we all recognize, the problem of wife battering is a difficult and tragic problem in our time.
Miss Beadle's role in establishing the Faye Peterson Home in Thunder Bay was a service not only to the City of Thunder Bay itself but to the surrounding communities. That was only part of the reason she was nominated, and in fact recognized with the Person's Award by the Province of Ontario.
Mr. Lauzon has been active over many years in such activities as the Civic Recreation Hockey League for the old City of Port Arthur. He became active in establishing the Thunder Bay Senior Men's Social and Fix It Club which plays an important part in supporting senior citizens who want to remain in their homes and do not have the means to call upon professional services such as plumbing, repair work around their homes, and so on. Through this club it is possible for them to call on volunteers who will provide those services. That is just more evidence with respect to the importance of volunteer service in the community.
[Stage Direction]
June 12, 1986
Canada Pension Plan
I am reminded of the activities of Mrs. Ruth Callon, who has been active in a variety of community activities. She was active in the Lakehead Social Planning Council which played such an important part in establishing a diversity of community services. By researching the needs of the community, the council has played a vital part in establishing activities as diverse as the Castlegreen Co-operative, the Meals-on-Wheels organization and all types of other services. She has also served the United Way and has assisted in the fund-raising activities of the St. Joseph's Heritage, a seniors' facility, which is a vital and important facility in the City of Thunder Bay. In these various ways Mrs. Ruth Callon has exemplified the qualities of a volunteer in the community.
I am also reminded of Mrs. Ruth Cook, another person who was active in helping to found the Mental Health Association in our city. She, with Mrs. Callon, was one of the founders of the Volunteer Action Centre where the co-ordination of a great range of volunteer services is carried out. Mrs. Cook recently chaired a housing committee which considered the housing needs of persons who had been recently released from psychiatric facilities in the province and for whom the intention was to re-establish themselves in our community. These various activities indicate the value and the role that volunteers have in our society.
I suggest that volunteers give us thousands, even millions, of hours year by year in volunteer services in a great range of organizations. Their activities are carried out by the young and old. It is work done by women and men. I do not want to distinguish among them, particularly in this proposal for recognition of volunteer service, except to say that for those who have gainful occupations, CPP credits follow from that gainful occupation. For those who do not have that opportunity, I want to say something in a few moments about that social reality. This proposal could be of considerable value toward their retirement years.
The work of volunteers in a diversity of organizations is part of the justification for this proposal. It could be said that volunteers are just taking the jobs of people who should be paid for performing these services. In any single organization that might well be the case, even if it were only a part-time job. However, when we have volunteers who are active in a diversity of organizations, then clearly we see a situation in which this proposal would have merit, given that there is no way of stacking this variety of involvement up into a part-time or full-time job.
Although I have referred to only a few community organizations, there are others. I think of the Thunder Bay Multicultural Association, which is another context within which people provide service. In various communities there are food banks, including some in the City of Thunder Bay. It is just one of the sad realities of our depressed economic conditions. In these contexts as well services are provided by persons who deserve recognition by our society and by our Government, a
recognition which could be provided through the Canada Pension Plan.
There is also the needs of the volunteers themselves to be considered. I have already suggested that many volunteers are gainfully employed and that this proposal would not be of any value to them. However, there are those who are not. In fact, I was struck by the comments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), when he spoke yesterday in the debate on the Canada Pension Plan. He observed that at least half of the people who are employed in Canada are not covered by private pension plans. He stated:
For many of those Canadians it means looking forward to the so-called golden age of retirement as the golden age of poverty. It is a fact that 6 elderly single women out of 10 over the age of 65 are living on incomes well below the poverty line. In a country as rich as Canada, with our resources, potential and people, I think that is a national disgrace.
The reality of 6 out of 10 single women over the age of 65 living below the poverty line is one of the brutal realities that this motion addresses.
In many of our communities, in the past it has not been possible for a woman to find gainful employment. I suggest that is still the case, particularly in the single industry towns of northern Ontario and so much of the rest of Canada. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), was telling me some time ago about women in the Sudbury Basin who would dearly like to find gainful employment but did not see any opportunity of obtaining it. They became volunteers in the schools. They found some satisfaction and some fulfilment for themselves, some useful expenditure of their energies, in assisting the schools by supporting the efforts of teachers. They make the education of the children of the community a better one than it would be without them.
That type of service is hardly going to be recognized by school boards which already find themselves so hard-pressed to finance the school system. This type of activity, which is the only opportunity that these women have, deserves to be recognized by awarding to these people under the consolidated revenues of Canada credits toward their retirement years and toward the receipt of Canada Pension Plan benefits. This, then, is the need which I want to make clear; that is, the necessity of expanding the Canada Pension Plan to allow persons who do not now have any opportunity to achieve entitlement to have a part in it.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches, in commenting on Canada Pension Plan amendments which have been debated in the House to some extent, and which have gone to committee for consideration, pointed out that there are persons who find themselves unable, for reasons of illness or because of the nature of their contracts, to obtain Canada Pension Plan credits for those periods, or for perhaps much of their employment. He suggested that they be given the opportunity to contribute not just their own share but the employer's share toward annual credits. That is one possible route for beginning to move in this direction. My proposal goes much further than that. It actually envisions the Government on behalf of
June 12, 1986
[Stage Direction]
Canadian society recognizing the service that volunteers give, to take some of the revenues of Government and apply them to the purchase of these credits so that entitlement can be built up. The Government, which surely values volunteer services, must find the educational, health and social services enormously enriched by the contributions of volunteers. My proposal calls on the Government to recognize those obligations, those contributions, accept the obligation and do something tangible about that recognition. It calls upon the Government to ensure that persons who could not otherwise gain Canada Pension Plan entitlement to have it in return for the services they render to society.
This proposal is one whose time has come. I look forward to debate on this matter and the possibility that the Government might very seriously consider the matter.
Mrs. Gabrieile Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, each year, usually in April, we devote a full week to the voluntary sector, and we do it because voluntary work is becoming increasing by important in our society and deserves recognition. Indeed, an increasing number of people are interested in the voluntary sector, as evidenced by the fact that, in 1980, which is unfortunately the last year for which we have the figures, over 2.7 million Canadians, or 15 per cent of our population, did voluntary work. According to Statistics Canada, about 350 million hours of work were given freely in 1980. This would represent the work of about 220,000 paid full-time workers for a full year. It means an average of 137 hours of work for each volunteer, or approximately three hours a week. All this represents goods and which must be added to the Gross National Product and which amount at a few billion dollars a year. We know that threre are over 50,000 charity organizations registered at Revenue Canada, without mentioning all the voluntary groups which, without being registered, still provide useful services to their respective communities.
The importance of voluntary action, both as a social force and as an essential element of the Canadian way of life, is being increasingly recognized. It is more and more strongly that many services offered by volunteers and their deep devotion to their work puts them on another level than those services provided by paid workers. Reinforcement of the voluntary sector is seen as a means to improve the ability of society to meet the social and health needs of the Canadian population. The voluntary sector is often more able to identify the needs of various segments of the population and find adequate answers to those needs, than the Government system. The contribution of the voluntary sector to the development of our societies and the improvement of the living standards of our fellow citizens has been tremendous and undeniable. I am therefore not in any way minimizing the value of that input even if I do not agree with the motion put forward today by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).
Canada Pension Plan
Under the motion of the Hon. Member, the Government should consider paying Canada Pension Plan benefits to persons not making contributions to the Plan in proportion to the time they have dedicated to voluntary work activities. At first glance, such a suggestion seems to deserve our full support, for it reaches into our deep feelings of appreciation and gratitude for those who do voluntary work. We would therefore be tempted to support it wholeheartedly. However, by supporting that motion, we would only be creating more and more inequities as well as undermining the basic principles of the Canada Pension Plan. Let me elaborate for a moment on the problems of unfairness that could arise from the implementation of the motion before us tonight.
For the purposes of this debate, I have spent some time trying to identify the actual reality of that activity, voluntary activity, and that is when I realized the sheer complexity of this matter, Mr. Speaker. All the studies carried out on this subject, and it is true that they have been few, agree that there are two networks of voluntary work: a formal network, the only one in fact that we can assess, and an informal one. The formal network basically includes voluntary work carried out through associations of voluntary groups, whereas the informal network deals with individual forms of voluntary work. It would be a mistake to believe that any voluntary action has to be collective or organized. On the contrary, voluntary activities are often carried out by people acting spontaneously within a group or privately, alone or with two or three other people, and it is clear in my mind that no system of recognition of that voluntary action can be complete unless it takes into account individual, non collective, non organized contributions.
Trying to assess quantitatively and qualitatively the contribution of volunteers involved in the official network would represent a major endeavour; but we can only start to imagine how difficult it would be to try to assess the contribution of volunteers involved in the unofficial network. Then again, should we create classes of volunteers by setting up a petty regulation which would recognize volunteer work on condition that it is visible, institutionalized, registered, done within the framework of recognized groups operating under a corporate name and with Government approval?
People In Action, the report on voluntary action to the Government of Canada warned us against such an approach and recommended not to enclose voluntary action within well-defined categories.
Above all, the integration of volunteer workers to the Canada Pension Plan would require Government interference in volunteer work, which from now on would be subjected to constant monitoring and control. Indeed, how could we grant benefits under the Canada Pension Plan proportional to the time spent in voluntary work without computing this time? And how could we compute it without setting up a heavy and cumbersome bureaucracy?
It is not easy to quantify voluntary action, because its various shape and form is determined by the various needs it tries to meet. I suggest that we should not try to impose a

June 12, 1986
Canada Pension Plan
technocratic kind of logic on this area of activity. Volunteer work can only be effective if, while recognizing its tremendous value and considerable economic and social impact, we respect its specificity and autonomy.
Trying to institutionalize volunteer action to meet the requirements of an administrative and bureaucratic logic rather than the needs of the people would probably mean paralysing it. I suggest the independance of this sector should be preserved and respected, something we could not do if we wanted to control everything. One need only imagine the burden which bureaucracy would represent for volunteer groups to understand that this could block the most creative initiatives.
Mr. Speaker, other will deal with the impact such a measure could have on the very nature of the Canada Pension Plan. For my part, I felt the need to emphasize the constraining aspect of this measure which, although not deliberately, would act as a sort of choker stifling the creativity of the volunteer sector.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is to be congratulated on his desire to give recognition to, and find a way of thanking, thousands of volunteers in Canada who work with such dedication for various community services, sports and cultural activities and social services.
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say these congratulations do not extend to the Government. The Parliamentary Secretary has just given us a demonstration of this Conservative Government's philosophy. First of all, she enumerated and congratulated and gave statistics on volunteer work. She then started to criticize the motion by saying that we could not quantify the time spent by these people on volunteer work. She then gave us a series of measures that are not applicable to this specific proposal in relation to the Canada Pension Plan, and she told us that we would hear the rest from another Member in another speech.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that a bunch of public servants were given the job of looking at this motion and finding all the negative points so that she could say it was not acceptable. On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, there are some things the Government could have said but didn't, namely that the Hon. Member's suggestion, although perhaps not the best in terms of the Canada Pension Plan, does provide a way to recognize the value of the work done by these people in our society for all Canadians, for our youth and for our senior citizens.
Mr. Speaker, that is your typical Conservative philosophy: nyet. When someone suggests compensation for people who are doing a good job: nyet. Mr. Speaker, they have no compassion, no class and no gratitude.
I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary when she mentions the sums of money that would be involved-I don't have the figures- how much it would cost, how many hours of work would be involved, and how much the dedication of these people is worth. On the other hand, they are not even capable of finding a way to recognize and appreciate this work.
She mentioned Volunteer Week. That is too easy. It doesn't cost anything to say: Tomorrow is Volunteer Week. Next week is Tom, Dick and Harry Week. The week after, somebody else's week. But what is this Government doing to show these people they are important to our society? Who are these people?
First of all, there are fathers and mothers who are beginning to do volunteer work with children after working hours, in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada, in hockey for instance, the kind of people like Wayne Gretzsky, Maurice Richard, Guy Lafleur, people who were first trained by volunteers. Then there is figure skating for those who have daughters. Other activities include majorettes, flag bearers, painting, theatre, ballet. These people are all volunteers who generously give not only their time but also their money to ensure the success of the events.
After that you have everything. It so happens that I had lunch today with Mrs. Solange Denis, a well know Canadian personality, and she was telling me about the number of hours of volunteer work done in a home near here, a home for elderly and sick people.
These people expect to hear words of encouragement from the Government. At least, reading the text prepared by an official, the speaker should have said: We thank you from the bottom of our heart. Never in our lifetime could the Government pay and thank you for everything you are doing. Unfortunately the proposition as worded is not applicable, but we will set up a committee to find not only a year but a week for volunteers. Perhaps the Prime Minister should have certificates delivered to all volunteers throughout Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we could have taken this opportunity to establish a committee. The Government could have amended the proposal, and I am convinced that the Hon. Member would have been willing to say: We are going to establish a Parliamentary Committee because there are volunteers in every Canadian constituency, people of all ages and social backgrounds in sports, cultural activities and social work. We could have sat down together and invited these people to appear before us. Instead of deciding what they should be given, we could have met with them and asked them what they would like the Government to do to recognize their contribution and to make them feel important in our society.
This would have shown our concern for these people and encouraged them. I was in charge of recreational activities for 25 years. I have already said that, at the age of twelve, I took part in a choirboy strike, which was not too popular at the time. When I played midget hockey, our coach was a father of seven children. He worked during the day for very low wages and
June 12, 1986

came to coach us in the evening, and at the time, we did not play in arenas, but on outside rinks. He was our coach and he used to help us. During the weekends, there were practices. In addition to feeding and raising his own family, this man paid so that others could take part. This tradition continues today. The Government had a perfect opportunity to show its humanity and its concern by rewarding those people. They are not asking for a reward, but they would appreciate it.
Before I entered politics, when I was in charge of recreational activities and founded a community center and a senior citizens' club-I did many things in my community-I remember that every time our Member of Parliament came to a presentation or an assembly, it was an occasion to rejoice, to feel satisfied, a show of appreciation for the work carried out by thousands of volunteers.
And now that I am a Member of Parliament-I would never have dreamt that I would be on that side of the fence-I must admit that before, in my constituency, it was first the Conservative Member, then the Union Nationale, and now I am on the other side and I know too well how important it is for the elected representative to be there when there is an event, a community centre, a group of youngsters playing hockey.
But today, those thousands and thousands of viewers would have expected from the Government spokesman, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mrs. Bertrand) the person whose duty it is to be the most compassionate human being in Canada, a minimum of recognition, a minimum of appreciation, a minimum of attention.
Mr. Speaker, another Progressive Conservative Member will be speaking after me, and I have one minute left. It is my hope, because this is not a matter of political stripe, it is my hope that the next one will be more compassionate. He will find a way, and certainly my colleague for Thunder Bay

 Nipigon (Mr. Epp), my colleague for Outremont (Mrs. Pepin) and I, we would accept that the Government or the next Member on behalf of the Government move an amendment to that proposal providing that a committee be struck with representatives from all sides of the House, in order to consult the thousands and thousands of volunteers in Canada, in order to know how the Government should express its appreciation and encourage other future volunteers, a new generation to follow in the footsteps of their parents.
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Outremont made me think of all women's groups and associations. I think that any improvement in this country in the sexual equality field is due to the women who fought within these voluntary groups. They did it on their own time, Mr. Speaker. They did after they had finished cooking and feeding their children. They had to spend evenings in church basements, in parishes, in schools in order to fight and propose solutions.
Mr. Speaker, you have just signaled me that my speaking time is over. I hope all Members will give their consent so that the motion can be amended and that a committee is formed to
Canada Pension Plan
consult the thousands of volunteers in Canada in order to know their concerns and their need for recognition.


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the motion of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay- Nipigon (Mr. Epp) who suggested that the Government should consider paying Canada Pension Plan benefits to persons not making contributions to the plan, and that the payments be in proportion to the time such persons dedicate to voluntary efforts in communmity social services.
There is no doubt that voluntary activity confers very real and concrete benefits on Canadian society. The total economic contribution of registered charities and volunteer workers covered in two Statistics Canada surveys was $4,476 million in 1980. In comparative terms, this was equal to 1.7 per cent of the Gross National Product.
Volunteer activity and output is a significant sector in Canada's economy. It is especially significant in the improvement of the health and social well-being of Canadians. As well, we know that there are social, psychological, philosophical, and cultural aspects of volunteer activity which enrich our society and cannot be measured economically.
If the intent of the motion of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon is to recognize volunteer workers, I fully agree with it. I believe we can agree in general that volunteers work of their own free will in a discretionary activity, that is, in an activity of their choice without immediate anticipation of pay or expectation of benefits of an economic sort. Volunteer workers are committed to helping others by giving time, services, goods or materials without looking for their own gain or expecting remuneration. It is this altruistic principle which is the foundation of all voluntary activity in this country. If the intent of the Hon. Member's motion is to remunerate volunteer workers, I do not feel that the motion is entirely appropriate.
There is no doubt that volunteers do real work, valuable work and that they deserve recognition. I believe that this recognition should be in keeping with the volunteer spirit. Volunteers have energy, time, desire and motivation to help others freely in a discretionary activity. Recognition of volunteer workers should be in keeping with their independence and should support and foster their altruistic ideals.
I want to point out that the Government recognizes the work of volunteers in ways which are compatible with and support the spirit of voluntarism. For example, one of the ways the federal Government recognizes the contribution of health and social service volunteers is through the lifestyle award presented by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp). This award is presented annually to individuals who have undertaken voluntary activities without remuneration to improve the well-being of their community.
We can seek two of various examples of notable volunteers receiving the Order of Canada from the Governor General. There are also various programs of recognition initiated by the provinces. National Volunteer Week, which is sponsored by

June 12, 1986
Canada Pension Plan
the Canadian Association of Volunteer Bureaus, is proclaimed in many communities. This year it was April 13 to 19. It provides another occasion on which Canadians can focus their attention and express their appreciation for volunteer workers.
Assistance to the voluntary sector is an issue of great concern to the Government. We recognize the importance of voluntary action in the lives of Canadians. We also recognize that Government and the voluntary sector must complement each other in appropriate and effective ways.
The Government provides tangible support to the voluntary sector through grants, technical and material assistance directed to voluntary activities. For example, the Department of National Health and Welfare directed grants totalling $6.1 million to 51 national voluntary health organizations and 27 national voluntary social service organizations during the 1985-86 fiscal year. These grants assisted national voluntary organizations in meeting their operating costs and carrying out national activities during that fiscal year. This is the kind of support that has significant social relevance for our society as a whole and assists the voluntary sector in achieving its goals and objectives on a broad scale.
As well, there are various programs which provide grants, technical assistance and other material support for voluntary projects and voluntary action programs across Canada on a regional or community level and/or to particular groups and activities. For example, under the Department of National Health and Welfare, the New Horizons Program funded close to 2,000 projects in 1985-86 involving senior citizens. Voluntary projects in areas dealing with the elderly, children, the poor, youth and families in crisis were also supported through this Department.
Another example of the Government's commitment to volunteer activity is the specific responsibilities that the Department of the Secretary of State has been assigned. A voluntary action program administered by that Department provided support to over 100 voluntary groups across Canada with a budget of $708,000 in the 1985-86 fiscal year. This program encouraged the participation of disadvantaged groups, such as women, native citizens, minority groups and the disabled to participate in the mainstream of Canadian society.
Over and above the grants programs, the technical assistance and other material support provided to voluntary organizations, the Government plays an advocacy and policy role in regard to voluntarism. Through research, we seek a clearer understanding of the dynamics of voluntary action in Canada. Such understanding is necessary if the Government is to develop policy initiatives to improve its ability to offer the kind of support to voluntarism which that sector requires. Such support should be appropriate and effective. It should also be consistent, of course, with the historic qualities of independence and self-reliance of the voluntary sector and in keeping with the principles of voluntary action.
Although the sentiments which prompted the Hon. Member's motion are admirable, I do not think that the direct remuneration of volunteer workers through Canada Pension Plan benefits is appropriate. I believe that the remuneration of volunteer workers would undermine the spirit of voluntarism in the country. I believe it is much more appropriate and effective to provide tangible support to the voluntary sector through grants, technical and material assistance to support and promote voluntary activities. It is the material support to activities and good works that ultimately benefit the individuals who need them.
I have looked at only a few of the issues that concern appropriate support to the voluntary sector. I have not asked the numerous questions which could be addressed to the Hon. Member concerning the implementation of his proposal. My purpose is to show that volunteer workers are recognized and encouraged by the Government and that voluntary activities are materially supported. The Government is very aware of the importance of voluntarism in this country and its role in supporting the voluntary sector in flexible and vital ways.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in this debate on a fascinating motion proposed by my colleague from Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp), which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of paying Canada Pension Plan benefits to persons not making contributions to the Plan, and that such payment be in proportion to the time such persons dedicate to voluntary efforts in community social services.
I find it fascinating as I have thought many times about to the difficulties of people who are short of financial resources but not of human qualities. If we could help those people we might encourage them to participate in voluntary work. You know as well as I do that voluntary work costs a lot of money and that many people who are willing to help do not have the money to buy a bus ticket or decent clothing.

I thought the motion of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) was fascinating. How can we recognize the role of the volunteer in today's society? Many are willing but do not have the means to participate in ways they would like. Either they do not have the money for transportation, the money for clothes or even the health that would allow them the luxury of time to get out and work. There is no question that the volunteer brings a humanizing perspective to our society. It brings a human touch to the bureaucracy that surrounds so many of our institutions. It also brings a degree of skill development and self-satisfaction which is so important in the development of one's sense of worth, ego and personality.
I know that many of us in this Chamber have been involved in volunteer work, whether in teaching young people in the field of sports, arts and crafts, Brownies, Scouts, Guides or
June 12, 1986

Canada Pension Plan
Cubs. We may have worked as Big Brothers or Big Sisters or in the hospital milieu or helping the poor, sick, or elderly. We may have been involved in Meals on Wheels or pushing the gift cart through the hospital. We may have driven people who were incapacitated or incapable to doctors appointments. We may have actually cooked the meals that went into the hot packed meals delivered to doors. We may have been involved in friendly visiting or going to the veterans' hospital, which I can recall doing. We brought all kinds of services to society because we had an inner desire to fulfil our own personal need while, at the same time, helping someone else.
What that did for us is incredible. In many instances we learned how to develop a publicity program, how to design posters and leaflets and how to meet people. Our interpersonal skills were developed in this kind of setting. It was a challenge to meet people at their level and to meet people of different backgrounds, cultures, and persuasions and to get along with them. It is a great and important skill for people of all ages.
I would not like this to be a skill which is only usable by those who have disposable income. That is where the dilemma comes in. My friend has proposed that we consider a way, through the Canada Pension Plan, of being able to carry on when you are older. How can we acknowledge volunteers? We have volunteer week and volunteer buttons. We give plaques and cups and God knows how many different things to try to encourage and recognize voluntarism. I do not know if that is truly enough. I can only say that the Member has brought a most creative thought to mind which I do not want to turn down out of hand. I cannot say that I buy it a hundred and fifty per cent because I can see the inherent problems. However, maybe there is a way to get around it. I will never know unless I study the matter and pay attention to an important issue in our society, the role of the volunteer.
Is it contribution to this plan? Is it another form of protecting oneself and allowing oneself the capacity and ability to participate in our society? I really am not sure. However, I am sure that I do not want to turn the idea down cold without giving it a chance, without looking at-

-the pros and cons and seeing if there is not a possibility to earn pension credits for voluntary work. In this regard-

I would like to move an amendment to Motion M-103. I move:
That all the words after the word "that" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare be empowered to study the question of paying Canada Pension Plan benefits to persons not making contributions to the plan, and that such payment be in proportion to the time such persons dedicate to voluntary efforts in community social services."
I submit this amendment for your consideration, signed and sealed on this day. I would like to speak to it following its disposition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bernier):: I want to say, with respect, to the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Fine-stone) that I am taking her amendment under advisement and that she can continue her speech until 6:57 p.m.


Jean-Claude Malépart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Maiepart) on a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is the following: Would the Chair rule now on the amendment of my colleague from Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) instead of waiting to rule later? I think it would be better-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: As I said, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) will be allowed to continue her speech for a few minutes so that the Chair-and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie will surely understand why-can consider the amendement. It is as simple as that.
The Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) has the floor for a few minutes.


Sheila Finestone: Do I understand, Mr. Speaker, that you are now going to study the amendment and, subsequent to your decision, we will know whether we are to debate the amendment which I have just moved?
I feel very strongly that we must study voluntary effort because through the various budgetary reforms in the November statement, the May Budget and the February Budget, we have cut back in some significant areas of service. It is true that certain areas would need to be realigned. In other areas, however, as in the equalization payment fund, we are cutting in areas which are going to hurt our population. As a result of this we will need additional manpower and all the resources and encouragement possible to recruit people to fill the gap created by these Government decisions. In order to find such people, they themselves have to find mechanisms which would be enabling to them.
That is why I feel we should not shut the door on any new innovation. We should not close our minds. There may be something here which will be helpful. I do not know. I certainly do not have all the answers. I see that my amendment has brought the House to life. The whole world is coming in. They are all volunteers coming in to volunteer their time to discuss this Bill. That is wonderful.
This is beyond a joking matter. It is an important issue. Anyone who makes light of the role of the volunteer is insensitive to that particular function in our society which is key to the values that we hold as helpers of others in society.

June 12, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow), a few seconds.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, the intent of the Hon. Member's motion is commendable. However, I am struck by the complexity of implementing the proposal for paying Canada Pension Plan benefits to persons not making contributions to the plan. It is also proposed that payments should be in proportion to the time such persons dedicate to voluntary efforts in community social services. In order to look at the CPP as a vehicle for implementing the Hon. Member's motion, we first need to consider the purpose of the plan and some of the ways in which it works.
The purpose of the CPP is to replace a portion of employment earnings, the major source of income for most Canadians, in the event of retirement, disability or death. Virtually every worker between the ages of 18 and 65, in the paid labour force, whether an employee or self-employed, working fulltime or part-time, is required by law to make contributions to the plan. The important point I want to make is that it is a mandatory social insurance scheme. It is also a pension plan in the true sense of the word. It is a mechanism for replacing employment earnings for wage workers and their families when those earnings are lost because of specific contingencies of life.
Currently contributions to the plan are set at 1.8 per cent of an employee's contributory earnings. That is matched by an equal payment from the employer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. On the question of the motion of the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), I regret to inform her that I cannot find the motion in order. I refer her to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 435, paragraph one:
It is not an amendment to a motion to move that the question go to a committee.
It now being seven o'clock, the hour provided for Private Members' Business has now expired and we return to Orders of the Day.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) appeared to be well prepared for her speech and she had only a minute or two. I thought that with unanimous consent we could all hear the remarks she has been working on for so long.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is there unanimous
consent?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The hour provided for Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal PostSecondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, be read the third time and passed.
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives' strategy failed, thanks to Liberal vigilance. Mr. Speaker, what is C-96? It is a Bill providing for the transfer of federal funds for health care and post-secondary education. Why, Mr. Speaker, is the Official Opposition so violently opposed to Bill C-96? First of all, because this Government has made undue and unacceptable cuts in funding for two very important items: post-secondary education for our young people and medicare.
Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, this Government is going to cut a total of $2 billion from these programs.
Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable, according to representations made by the Liberal Government of Quebec, the Hon. Robert Bourassa and his Finance Minister, Gerard-D. Levesque.
Mr. Speaker, the same Conservative Government that claimed Canadian unity as its priority is now refusing to transfer to the provincial governments those payments that are vital and essential to the well-being of our youth.
Mr. Speaker, in committee, the vast majority of the people who testified objected to the way the Conservative Governe-ment is distributing money to the provinces and the amounts involved. But who is going to be affected? If the changes in transfer payments meant that the problems were merely being transferred from the federal to the provincial administrations, it would be bad enough.
But who are these people across Canada, who are these people in Quebec who are going to be affected by these cutbacks? Look at post-secondary education. Our sons and daughters, our young people have to spend an increasing number of years getting an education just to get a job and be able to plan for a career once they are on the labour market. Compared to previous generations, our young people must be
june 12, 1986_______________COMMONS DEBATES
far more flexible because they will change careers at least three times in their lifetime. Mr. Speaker when these young people get to the post-secondary level, it is important for our schools to have all the facilities and resources they need to ensure that tomorrows youth has the knowledge and intellectual skills they will have acquired in these institutions.
The victims of this unacceptable decision will be our youth. Mr. Speaker, the Government's excuse is that it does not have the money, but I say, Mr. Speaker, that this excuse is shocking and outrageous!
Even though the Government had no mechanism, no legislation to refund people, banks and companies with deposits of $60,000 or more, it costing $1 billion of taxpayers money in order to do it. The Government was not helping people who had $50 or $100 in the bank, but people who had $60,000 or more. They spent $1 billion for the rich, at a time when provincial Governments needed that money to help our generation, our youth at the post-secondary level.
Who will be affected as far as Medicare and hospital cost are concerned, Mr. Speaker? First, our senior citizens, because provincial governments will be forced to make cuts in health programs. The quality of care, the quality of services, the salaries paid to the staff will be affected by these cuts made by the Federal Government. Mothers at the time of delivery, maternity departments in hospitals, people afflicted with serious illnesses will be affected-
Mr. Speaker, this party does not care. They imposed a 10 per cent tax on drugs last year. They had the guts to impose a 10 per cent tax on the syringes that diabetics have to purchase. These same individuals had decided that medication for cardiac patients would be taxed. Those people, Mr. Speaker, that is the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and his Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) saw the profit for the treasury which could result from people's illnesses. Meanwhile, in order to fulfill an electoral promise, that same government misspent $55 million of taxpayers' money to change to blue the colour of the uniform of our forces. This same government spends an additional $100 million a year, to send 1,000 extra soldiers to Lahr in Germany and did grant tax concessions to the Reichman brothers, Mr. Speaker, in the Gulf take-over. And we know the results and what has happened in Quebec and in Montreal East.
Mr. Speaker, this same Prime Minister says today that there is no money for the sick in Canada, no money for our young people; yet, he spends money on a film about himself, for historical purposes apparently.
Mr. Speaker, ever since September 4 we have witnessed a series of blunders and scandals. No wonder that not one Conservative Member, I should not say none, because in fact there was one, the Member for Assumption but he resigned- No wonder that not a single Conservative member should rise in this place to protect the interests of his constituents and the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
citizens of the whole province of Quebec, the men and women of Canada, health and post-secondary education-
Mr. Speaker, what has been their main concern since September 4? The appointment of friends, sons and brothers-in-law. Their main concern, their main interest, Mr. Speaker, has been patronage.
Meanwhile, who is suffering hardship in this country? Canadian men and women, of course.
Mr. Speaker, now I am mainly addressing the conservative Members from Quebec because they know full well that the Government will only create more hardship for Quebekers unless it changes its stand with regard to this Bill.
However, we all know this is not the first time Members opposite remain silent. One needs only remember all those issues that were important for the province of Quebec, where decisions had to be made in Ottawa in order to protect the interests of the Quebec people. They failed in all of them: Domtar, the situation in the East end of Montreal, the Gulf take-over, Vickers, all the debates about the shipbuilding industry, the Desbiens pulp and paper plant, Matane.
Mr. Speaker, Quebec businesses face a tax increase, because the Canadian Government refuses to pay the $66 million in equalization payments it owes the province. And to whom did businesses pass on that cost? To Quebec consumers.
Mr. Speaker, no Conservative Member would dare stand up and say: Wait a minute, we Quebecers have had enough. It's time something is done, it's time for the Government to deliver. But no one on that side has stood up to defend the interests of the people.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to put on the record part of an article written in the Montreal newspaper La Presse by Lysiane Gagnon who is very well known in Quebec. The article was published on May 22 under the heading: "Image is not enough". I quote: "The problem with the Conservative Government is that it is "cheap". I cannot find any other word that fits it. Incompetent? Not always. Common? The word is too strong. Mean? Well, this is the same as cheap, but it does not have the same ring to it. So let's say it's cheap, because the word conveys at the same time the idea of lure of gain as well as that of being naive and ridiculous, somewhat upstart, a little mean and immensely silly."
Mr. Speaker, this is the reputation this Prime Minister and these Members are making for themselves in Quebec.
I shall not list all the Conservative scandals, Mr. Speaker, I shall not mention the names of the people involved, but that article provides a very good summary of the impact and of the primary concern of this Prime Minister: his own image, his appearance is all that counts. The interests of the people are a minor concern to him.
I am sure that my colleague from Mount Royal, who is here tonight, as well as the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard- Anjou, would want their Conservative colleagues from Quebec to rise, as they did tonight and get together, as Quebecers, to

June 12, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
provide our youth with the education system they are entitled to and which they need because they will take over after us.
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues would surely appreciate that Conservative Members from Quebec would join with us so that Medicare remains the best health system, a system which provides any man or woman with the kind of medical attention then need so as to prevent uncertainty and any possible loss of life due to a lack or care, medical skills and training, as well as equipped hospitals which could save their life or make it "liveable". That is the kind of system we now enjoy in Canada, Mr. Speaker.
We must be proud of our system compared with those of the United States and many other countries... Just ask the Americans if they would not rather have that kind of medicare in their own country. Go ask Americans how much they have to pay when at 55 or 60 they suffer a heart attack. Ask them what are the consequences of having to pay the bill. Talk to young couples, to young American households when the wife gives birth to a baby! What are the costs incurred by that young couple at the onset of a career, trying to establish a family? Here, in Canada, we are lucky and if we are so privileged today, it's thanks to people before us who fought, made sacrifices, paid contributions and worked so we can enjoy everything we have. Today, these men and women are those we call the old age people, the elderly.
We know how understanding these Hon. Members and this Prime Minister are, they who benefit as I do from all the good things the elderly won for us. Is there sign of appreciation, of recognition, Mr. Speaker? If we list what this Government has done for senior citizens since September 4, in hardly 20 months, we realize this is the bottom line, a real shame.
Let me list them, Mr. Speaker. First, they deprived 80,000 senior citizens, aged 60 to 64, of an important program related to the old age security pension, the so-called spouse allowance.
Mr. Speaker, those 80,000 people all across Canada, 85 per cent of whom are women, those people living below the poverty line are now being denied in National Health and Welfare offices the spouse allowance that would give them an extra $100 for a more decent living. Those women are being denied that program-and they are to be found in every constituency of every Canadian province-simply because they are single, separated or divorced. It is the only thing that disqualifies them. This Government, those Members did nothing in 2 years to correct a situation they themselves created.
As a second attack against the senior citizens, there was the de-indexing or the intent to cut off 3 per cent from the old age security pension. Mr. Speaker, all the Progressive Conservative Members rose in succession, starting with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), to indicate they supported that.
Not one Conservative Member rose to defend them.
But when, a year ago on June 19, they came to Parliament Hill, and Mrs. Denis challenged the Prime Minister, then they were forced to bow to senior citizens. They were forced to recognize-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. Member, but the period for speeches has now expired. Questions or comments. The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my colleague from Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) who never fails to make a very good speech and give a very clear explanation of the issue, and ask him whether he would answer a simple question.
First I want to tell him that I agree with his statement that the federal Government transfers its deficit to the provinces through Bill C-96 by reducing the funds which had been promised to the provinces. I can give him the figures, but I am sure he knows them as well as I do. Between now and 1990-91 the federal Government will save close to $6 billion by failing to honour its commitment to the provinces and by acting unilaterally.
I will read him a quotation from Hansard: "Taking the action of unilaterally cutting the financing, which the Government is now proposing, and then having some discussions with the provinces, surely puts the cart before the horse. We should be reversing this procedure". Michael Wilson, now Minister of Finance, but when he was an ordinary Member who said, and this appears in Hansard for March 22, 1982: putting the cart before the horse. Here is more: "The only sign it... ", the federal Government, " .. . shows of cutting spending is by shifting the burden of the established programs funding on to the provincial Governments." Another statement made by the Minister of Finance on March 23, 1982. I would ask the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) to explain to the House the impact this Bill will have on his province, the Province of Quebec, the $2 billion which will be lost to the Province of Quebec, and to tell us his reaction to this rather significant loss.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague very appropriately mentioned that those people do not respect their word and their commitments. In the two texts that he mentioned, the attitude of the Minister of Finance, of this Prime Minister and of some Hon. Members is clearly evidenced with respect to what they said during the election campaign. Remember in Sherbrooke, Quebec, on the 26th of July, when that same Prime Minister promised to restore the full indexation, and a year and a half later he cut it and broke his promise. In the same place and at the same time he was promising elderly people that the New Horizons Program would be maintained with adequate funding.
Two years later, he has again broken his promise. He has just been cutting $3 million in the same place, Mr. Speaker, and if you turn back to the press statement, you will see that in
June 12, 1986

Sherbrooke, Quebec, the Prime Minister promised, and all the Conservative Members present in this House were there, he promised, crossing his heart, to provide funding, to maintain the health insurance plan, to maintain hospital insurance. To top it all, he promised that no legislation would be modified without consulting the people concerned. Mr. Speaker, what we have is exactly the opposite. We have seen that with the old age security pension case, we have it again with the New Horizons Program, we get it with respect to health insurance, post-secondary education, unilateral redistribution of transfers to the provinces, and we have it today with the change in the Canada Pension Plan, Mr. Speaker. The Minister tables a Bill and says: This is final, but we are listening, you can say what you want, but this is what must be passed. That is not good enough.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleague the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), the Conservative Members and the Prime Minister that although they just laugh at other people and they do not give a damn, there is one thing for sure, and it is something Mrs. Denis was telling me today when she came to Parliament Hill and other people that you meet everywhere tell you, even in the constituencies of Conservative Members, and it is that the people of Canada will laugh best because they will get rid of them at the next election.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions and comments, the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano).


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) who has led the fight that forced the Government to reconsider its decision to reduce pension benefits paid to older citizens and who has stoutly supported all issues in east-end Montreal. I should like to ask him the following question: If Bill C-96 deprives Quebec of $66 million, how will Quebecers manage to get all the health care, the university programs, etc. Can he tell us what will be the direct harmful consequences of such a federal measure in Quebec?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, some of the consequences have already been felt. In the last budget brought down by the Liberal Government of Quebec, taxes on businesses and professionals have been raised to recover the $66 million that were cut-off by the federal Government. And those people had to increase the price of their products and services so that down the road Quebec consumers will have to pay.
During the present negotiations in the public and parapublic sectors, the government proposals had to account for the loss of federal funds. As a result of strikes, rotating strikes and threats of strikes in educational institutions, and hospitals, Quebecers will have to pay for those workers because of the unacceptable decision of this Government.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
There are also reduced services and we have to consider the level of dental care provided to Quebec children. I am convinced that some people will get downgraded health care due to the shortage of funds and the obsolete equipment which should be replaced but on account of the reduced payments made by this Government, Quebec and I am sure all the other provinces are in the same situation, cannot replace the necessary health care equipment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to the question I was asking earlier and follow up on that asked by my colleague for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano) about the impact, and the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) refered to it when he replied that the taxes would mean an additional source of income for the Quebec Government which must make up for the amounts it had expected to receive from the Federal Government. However, there is also the impact on hospital services. As an Ontario resident, I know that we are already feeling the effects in my province. In spite of its valiant efforts to meet the need for hospital beds, the Provincial Government can only do so much to extend its services to more people. We must therefore reassess our priorities.
Does the Provincial Government in Quebec not have to reassess its priorities rather seriously since the amount it had expected to receive over the next four or five years is being reduced by $2,083 million? I think that the level of services will suffer. Can the Hon. Member make a comment about this issue?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) for having steered the debate to this subject.
We all know that the main problem for health care in Quebec was the overcrowding of emergency rooms. It is not much fun for someone who has just had an accident and who is in pain to have all kinds of trouble to get help. The Provincial Government, both under the PQ and the Liberals, has sincerely and honestly tried to improve the situation. But with the cut-backs, it will not be easy to do so now.
I am sure that the Quebec Government had projected to build the necessary foster homes and chronic care centres to free up . . . In my own riding, there is the case of the Notre-Dame Hospital: They have to use part of the wing to find accommodation for long-term patients, even though it should be used for short-term patients.
Mr. Speaker, there are sick people who have to wait longer to get treatment or be operated because of a lack of hospital beds. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier was right to emphasize the situation in Ontario, but I can tell him that we have exactly the same situation in Quebec; I am sure there are Hon. Members opposite who could tell us that the situation in New Brunswick and Newfoundland is exactly the same.

June 12, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
I should like to tell my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, that what we are going through tonight is part of a package, of an ongoing endeavour.
With reference to these people's mentality, if they hear that someone rich in the country has a problem, the Government will introduce a legislation to help him-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please! I must regretfully advise the House that the question and comment period is now over. Debate. The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) has the floor.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in rising tonight to support the Progressive Conservative Party and to help the Conservatives and the Government in every way I can so that they can implement the promise of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and the Conservative Party, to return to the 1977 funding formula for post-secondary education and health care.
It is not often I rise to support a Government, Liberal or Conservative, in something it said it would do. I admit that it is not very often I have done that. But tonight I want to applaud the Government for its platform plank. I just hope that its plank does not get plunked. I want to assure Conservative Members in the most non-partisan manner I can muster that if they were to implement the promise they made of returning to the 1977 funding formula, they would be applauded by every person in this country from all political Parties including, I must confess, myself.


Dave Nickerson: I doubt it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In that event, if I could get the floor, I would be the first to rise in the House and applaud. I am trying to be helpful to the Conservatives. I know it is a rare occasion but there is also nothing wrong once in a while for a Government or political Party to say: "Holy mackeral, maybe we underestimated this or goofed on that. Let's go back to the drawing board, back into the Parliament or the legislature and decide to do it in a different way". It is not too late. The Government can call another Bill as soon as I sit down and debate it for the remainder of the evening. It can call a different Bill for tomorrow and come back next week with a revised formula in conjunction with the announcements of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) today, his amendments to his Budget, and you can be sure, Mr. Speaker, that the House would quickly approve any other amendments which would help the Government and the Conservative Party implement their promise to return to the 1977 funding formula. I do not know how much more helpful I can be than that.


Philip Derek Lewis: Sit down.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: My hon. friend opposite suggests that if I sit down that would be helpful. In terms of my speech it might be helpful, but it sure would not be helpful in terms of giving him and his colleagues time to consider a change in the eleventh
hour. In fact, I think they would probably receive more credit for that than for anything else they have done in many months, at least since their change of heart, and I call it that sincerely, with respect to the indexation of senior citizens' pensions.
I had only a few moments to browse over the material which arrived on my desk today from the Department of Finance, in particular the amendments tabled by the Finance Minister. He can obtain any extra money the Government thinks it would need to live up to its promise of returning to the 1977 funding formula, and he can certainly bring in amendments if further ones are needed. With respect to his minimum tax proposal, for example, if we were to add 1 per cent to that-perhaps even one-half of 1 per cent-he would have the money he needs to return to the 1977 funding formula.
I also have another little suggestion. It could be posed as a minor amendment on which I am sure the Minister of Finance would receive unanimous consent in a matter of a minute. What I propose is a small, modest interest rate to be charged on corporation taxes which have been deferred. Let us say an interest rate of only 3 per cent, which is the rate we used to charge during the Second World War. I point out that 3 per cent of more than $30 billion in deferred corporation taxes would bring in $900 million in revenue. Surely that would be more than enough to keep the fifty-fifty funding formula in place for secondary education and health care. It would also provide enough money to provinces when they choose to improve or enlarge the services they presently provide which are eligible for federal cost sharing. The money would be there for that. In fact, it would serve as an enticement to the provinces to improve even further their delivery of secondary education and health care services.
The other thing it would do is to allow the provinces to get into new services that would also be eligible under the criteria.
I worry that, in my efforts to assist the Government in meeting its promise to return to the 1977 funding formula, new services that would ordinarily be eligible under the criteria of the federal-provincial agreement for health care would lose out.
The two items I have proposed would also provide enough funds, for example, to allow for new services that are not necessarily new but that would have been placed under new regimes. I refer to ambulance services, whether they be air or ground ambulances, and whether they be for injuries, sickness or for moving the elderly. A few weeks ago a senior citizen telephoned me with respect to moving her 85-year-old husband by ambulance a total of about seven miles from their apartment to a hospital for emergency blood transfusions. The bill was $65.
I wish to repeat what I said at second reading stage of this Bill. I wish to direct this comment to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), whom I respect as a fine Christian gentleman. Those who would make a profit off the misfortunes of others are basically immoral. I submit that the provision of a service such as an ambulance service should be
June 12, 1986

part and parcel of our hospital, doctor and senior citizen medical health services. There should be no question about that.
I would like some reassurance from the Government on the following. In the event that a province attempts to include all ambulance services under their services for hospitalization and medical care as well as for senior citizens under the EPF program, I am not sure that they will qualify for any funding, let alone funding under the present legislation.
We are approaching the 21st century. A formerly prominent personage in the country said that the 20th century belongs to Canada. At the rate we are going in this Parliament-and I do not want to blame it all on the present Government since this started in 1975 under the former Government-what we are really saying with this type of legislation is that the 21st century does not belong to Canada. It belongs on the backs of the young, the sick, the poor, the universities, the hospitals, the medical care plan, the provinces and the unemployed.
This type of legislation is an accurate symptom of the disease that is destroying co-operative federalism. It is destroying the sharing among Canadians of different walks of life of the costs with respect to providing what is a fundamental human need and human right. The Government House Leader or his Parliamentary Secretary should say that the subject matter of this Bill will be referred back to the appropriate committee, where it can be dealt with in a matter of a day, with respect to bringing in appropriate amendments to restore the program to the 1977 funding formula, as pronounced by the Party in power and by the present Prime Minister.
I now wish to deal with the decrease in the increases-and I want to be fair, it is not a cut in Government spending, it is a decrease in the increases. The increases that were projected and agreed upon as between the provinces, the hospital associations, the medical associations, and the federal Government over so many years, will cost my province $200 million over the next five years. That is less than is now the case under the Minister of Finance's new deal. That should cause the ghost of Franklin D. Roosevelt to rise out of his grave and scream about the perversion of the phrase "new deal". The reduction in the increases amounts to $2 billion. Of course, this gets transferred to the provinces, muncipalities, hospitals and various other services that are an adjunct to the health care delivery system. The money has to be raised somewhere.
Perhaps I can provide some support for the current Government in terms of sound business practices and efficiency. It seems to me that it is more efficient and less administratively costly to have the collection and delivery of tax dollars done by the national Government on its own behalf and on behalf of the provinces, universities and health care services. The Government then distributes the money under the fifty-fifty formula, and that is what the Government said it would do. It said it would return to the 1977 funding formula.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
I am trying to be calm and reasonable. I am not trying to provoke my hon. friends opposite. I really mean it when I say that I am trying to be helpful. If Government Members wanted to win plaudits right across the political spectrum in Canada and maybe even pull the teeth of members of the Opposition, not many of which I have left, and reduce whatever effectiveness we do have, they would carry out what they said they would do. I think I can safely say on behalf of my Party that if the Government were to do this, we would not object or obstruct and we would support wholeheartedly a return to the 1977 funding formula. The costs of that to the Canadian people would be less than they would be if a multiplicity of provinces, municipalities, hospitals, health care services and universities were to undertake the collection.
Two provinces have objected to this move vociferously. New Brunswick expressed its opposition in a well prepared brief and passed a unanimous resolution in its Legislature. The Province of Manitoba, which is governed by the Party to which I happen to belong, not only presented a brief but appeared before us. That brief has not been refuted by the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) in any way, shape or form of which I am aware.
The brief indicated that the fiscal capacity of the provinces in 1985-86 was about 100 per cent, more or less. The fiscal capacity now for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, even Ontario and certainly Manitoba is under 100 per cent. The fiscal capacity of Alberta is at 200 per cent, although with the oil crash I doubt if the figures are valid any longer in the case of Alberta. In fact, if the national average of fiscal capacity is 100 per cent, I doubt very much if more than one province will be able to make up the difference in the increased costs required to cover the decrease in the increases imposed by the federal Government.
I am trying to think of what else I could say to persuade my hon. friends that there is still time left between now and June 27 for them to say that they are prepared to rethink this matter. I for one would never rise to say: "Aha, you guys backed down". I would not do that and I promise to persuade my colleagues not to do so either. I am not sure that I would succeed in persuading them, but I think I could. I can say one thing and that is that I, members of my Party and people from all walks of life would applaud the Government for doing so.
No one is 100 per cent perfect and no one is 100 per cent wrong. It takes a big person to admit he or she is wrong and it takes a big person to say that he or she will change. Equally so, it takes a big Government, a good Government, at whatever level, to say that it will change what it has proposed. I think that, generally, people will applaud that. My colleagues opposite would do it if they had the courage and the political will. I believe they have the courage but they lack the political will. I think they worry too much about what Charlie Lynch, Jeffrey Simpson and others might say in their columns. Do not worry about that.


Mr. Howie:: It's Doug Fisher we're worried about.

June 12, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, and Doug Fisher. They have been saying bad things about the NDP too and we have been going up ever since so I would not worry about that. In fact, if they are so smart, why do they not run against us? I invite members of the Press Gallery to try that. In fact, I invite those same three people who write columns from on high to contest the election in Regina West. I would welcome them there. If I know the people there, even if they did not like me, they would run those three out of town.
To be even more serious, the Bill flies in the face of a piece of great Canadian history which was supported by members of all political Parties in the 1950s and 1960s. I am thinking of the likes of John Diefenbaker, Tommy Douglas, Lester Pearson and many others from all Parties who established a regime under which all the people of Canada shared in the costs of university education and health care services.
In my last minute may I say that we can do no less than not only return to the 1977 funding formula as promised by my good friends opposite but we could ensure through the tax system that the increases in funding for those programs are not decreased. I do not know of any hospital or university that is throwing money away. The hospitals and universities will be affected severely under this Bill. I make a final appeal to the Government and to my colleagues in the Liberal Party and the NDP: there are a few days left to go back to the drawing board and come up with what we all support, which is a return to the 1977 funding formula.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak once again to Bill C-96. Unfortunately it will bring about reactions and results for which no one in the House was elected or had a mandate to undertake. I would suggest that while we still have a chance we should seriously consider the amendments or at least undertake the consultation promised by the Government prior to cutting or decreasing equalization payment funds and established program financing funds which affect planning and responsibilities at the provincial level.
The federal Government should not have cut its contributions to post-secondary education since Canada is experiencing fundamental technological changes and since our youth and workers need more and more training, retraining, and education if they are to be able to face the challenges ahead of them in this post-technology world. Nothing bespeaks the need for this more as we move toward the Government's goal of entering into a free trade negotiation. That kind of negotiation, as well as negotiating on a multilateral level, will require a change in our workforce and a change in the educational patterns of the people and the workers of Canada. The key to being able to accomplish and meet those challenges will be a better educational program, and certainly better educated workers in society.
Therefore, I should like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, some comments that were made. Rarely do we hear them from a member of the judiciary. I am speaking now
about the remarks of Chief Justice Brian Dickson of the Supreme Court of Canada when he spoke to the graduating students at the University of British Columbia. He pointed out that we were in a tragic underfunding of universities situation, and that it was making Canada a second-class nation. I should like to quote what he said because I think it is information all Members of the House should keep in mind. These remarks come from a man of great and deep conviction, a man who has manifested his concern for the society in which we live, and a man who is in a position to see the impact of change as people come before him in the hallowed halls of the courts of the land. Chief Justice Dickson said the following:
Canada must have good universities with outstanding teachers and world-class research facilities.
Second-class funding of universities will inevitably lead to second-class teachers, second-class students, and-ultimately-a second-class nation.
We love this country too well, every one of us. We are proud of our accomplishments, and we are anxious to see ourselves move forward in today's society. The kind of action undertaken precipitously by the Government will certainly not enable us to continue to grow and to reach that first-class status and first-class stance we all want for our constituents. I want it for my constituents and the young people in my riding of Mount Royal, as does every Member of Parliament for his or her riding.
Chief Justice Dickson went on to say that the lack of funding was bordering on tragic and to choke off universities was the real tragedy. He also added: "It has been said by many people that education is too important to be left to educators. That may be true. But it is also true that education is too important to be left to Ministers of Finance", certainly a Minister of Finance who forgot to consult-that famous word about which we have heard so much-his confreres and his partners across the land. I am referring to each and every one of the Finance Ministers and the Premiers of the provinces. Where were the provincial Ministers of Education in these consultations? What happens to their long-term planning? They cannot plan on just a short-term program. They need five-year funding plans. It involves a great deal of considered effort and intelligent observation, as well as a deep knowledge of the system in each province, in order to develop the kind of curriculum which will produce the young and retrained we need for society.
In his federal Budget last May, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) announced plans to limit annual increases in transfer payments to the provinces health and post-secondary education systems. The weak excuse he used in doing that shows the kind of priority he places upon consultation and the very difficult role which our partners at the provincial level have to play. He forgot that they have a responsibility as well. Unilaterally, because he had this bug about decreasing the deficit at any cost, he went ahead and moved in a very serious and sensitive area of society.
To limit annual increases in transfer payments to the provinces for the post-secondary education and health sectors
June 12, 1986

to 5 per cent from 7.5 per cent seems to be a very short view of saving. What will be saved in the long run? It will be neither education nor health for those in need.
"In my opinion", said the Chief Justice, "money spent on minds will never be money misspent". He also added: "Like the courts, universities require a high degree of independence if they are to search for knowledge and educate students in the best fashion possible". This Chief Justice is a gentleman of 70 years of age who has had time to learn, to regard, and to respect the world in which he lives from the advantage of both his position and his years of experience. We ought to take the time now to stop, ponder, and vote against this kind of action by the Government.
As the House knows, Mr. Dickson was also the Chairman of the University of Manitoba Board of Governors. He also said: "Business and industry have a moral obligation to contribute to the financial well-being of Canada's universities". He gave a message to the private sector which should gladden the hearts of my confreres and colleagues in this room. He said: "My message to the private sector is to give to universities all the assistance that you can". However, that will only do part of the job. Universities would still need the firm knowledge, foundation, and money to do the planning. Perhaps the rest will enable the additions, but we need the fundamentals.
The mission of the universities is a trust which they exercise on our behalf. Universities train students for their future, but it is also for our future. "I would like to suggest", he added, "that the concept of equality, especially equality of opportunity, lies at the heart of Canadian values".
As they cut back on education, they thereby make it more expensive and less accessible to the larger number of young people who need to attend university. If they cut back on postsecondary scholarships, they cut back on the kinds of professors which remain here and end up with a very serious brain drain. We can ill afford the loss of our best educated and those who can pilot us through to the future. It will impact upon research and development. It will have very negative effects upon the well-being of society.
I could read chapter and verse and refer to many other clippings. If the Government is not prepared to listen to the views of the opposition Parties, then it should listen to the views of its constituents and the people who are very distressed by this undertaking on the Government's part. It has been said as well that the federal Government should not cut its contribution to health care, since the Canadian population is aging and since new and sophisticated medical equipment is very costly. I do not have to tell the House that that is a reality.
It would not hurt if we went back and refreshed our memories about a very important comment made as well by a member of our high court. I refer now to comments that were made by Mr. Justice Hall in his review of the health care
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
system in Canada, Canada's national and provincial health care program for the 1980s. Justice Hall provided us with a simple but eloquent reminder of the reasons that Canadians supported the concept of medicare in the first place. He said that almost all Canadians were agreed:
-that the trauma of illness, the pain of surgery, the slow decline to death, are burdens enough for the human being to bear without the added burden of medical or hospital bills penalizing the patient at the moment of vulnerability. The Canadian people determined that they should band together to pay medical bills and hospital bills when they were well and income earning. Health services were no longer items to be bought off the shelf and paid for at the checkout stand. Nor was their price to be bargained for at the time they were sought. They were a fundamental need like education, which Canadians could meet collectively and pay through taxes.
That is a fundamental value. That is the social contract that is Canada. It is the social responsibility and, yes, the moral obligation of the Government in power to see that those high values are maintained.
With the kind of action taken by the EPF cuts, we are not meeting the goals and aspirations for which this Government was elected. You cannot say that where you have obligations toward medicare you will be providing adequately for institutions, for health care centres, for homes for the elderly, for homes for the physically and mentally handicapped. What is the Government going to do about those people who need ongoing care that is costly? Some day, Mr. Speaker, you and I, everybody in this House-and certainly the Government in undertaking these actions-will suffer. The day will come, it is an unfortunate one, when we will become sick and we will have to go to a hospital. We hope that we would get the best of high-tech service, the finest in medical equipment and the finest of support mechanisms in a staff that is educated and trained.
The kind of action being taken today does not even allow us to dream in those terms. The Government is diminishing the kinds of structures we have put in place and it is lowering the quality offered to every citizen.
As far as planning is concerned, whether you are planning in the hospital sector or in the educational sector, you plan for the long term. You must plan not for tomorrow morning. It is not as if you were a Member of the House of Commons where your long-term agenda is for maybe 12 hours. A minimum of five years is needed to do proper planning. The cut which the Government has made was done without consultation.
I recall that when I spoke on this Bill before there were laughs and nasty interventions. I wondered at the lack of sensitivity of certain Members across the way. I am embarrassed to mention them although I might in the course of my remarks. They had the nerve to think that a 25 year veteran in the National Assembly, who was then and still is the Minister of Finance, brought down a Budget and accounted for the cuts in his Budget by saying that Quebec will have to tax firms to make up for the federal short-fall. Two Members across the way had the nerve to say to me that the Quebec Minister of Finance did not understand what was going on. I hope that

June 12, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
their constituents will remember that. They should be embarrassed and ashamed of what they said. Quebec did have to add extra taxes to make up for the federal short-fall, an additional $148 million was needed. I quoted the facts and figures last time, I may come back to them, but right now I would like to deal with some people who have had a great deal to say about what this Bill means.
It is obvious that the Government does not intend to listen to what I, as a simple Member, have to say, but maybe the Government will listen a little more closely to each and every one of these groups which the Government supposedly consulted. Let us take New Brunswick. The New Brunswick Legislative Assembly unanimously approved a motion presented by the Liberal Opposition condemning the unilateral action of the federal Government with respect to this EPF funding Bill, Bill C-96. Let me read the motion. If you do not want to believe me, Mr. Speaker, then believe the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly where I think you have a friend in office, if I recall correctly. It reads:
WHEREAS the Government of Canada has announced that the rate of growth in transfer payments under the Established Programs Financing Act will be decreased commencing in 1986; and
WHEREAS this reduction in the rate of growth will cost New Brunswick $9 million this year and will total an estimated $160 million by 1990-91; and
WHEREAS New Brunswick does not have the economic base to absorb such a loss;
BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick requests the Government of Canada-
I hope a few more Members are listening and maybe if they have electors in that area they have heard from them.
-to reconsider its unilateral decision and restore the Established Programs Financing to the level agreed to in 1982; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick requests the Government of Canada to enter into discussions-
You know that famous word "consultation", Mr. Speaker? The Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick has requested the Government of Canada to enter into discussions. It continues:
-with the Provinces in an effort to mutually agree to the level of funding under the Establishing Programs Financing Act for 1987-88 and beyond; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that should any reduction in the rate of growth of funding under the Established Programs Financing Act be agreed to that the federal government take steps through the equalization program to compensate the Atlantic provinces for such EPF losses, and ensure that the equalization program provide sufficient revenue so that all provinces have the ability to provide comparable levels of public services at comparable levels of taxation.
The difference of what the Government is doing will have an impact that will be different in the East, in the West, in the central provinces and in the Territories, Mr. Speaker. We have an equality clause in our Constitution. We are even going against our own Constitution, which is something we ought to look at.
The Government of Manitoba was not pleased. I could quote practically the same thing. The Government of Manitoba suggests that Canadians should devote a declining share of our economy to health and higher education services at a time when all forecasts show that needs are clearly increasing and
evidence suggests that our country can afford to maintain and improve our services.
Quebec-
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, during his budget speech for 1986-87, the Quebec Finance Minister pointed out that provincial transfers are not the cause of the federal deficit since they have remained constant in relation with the GNP for many years while other federal expenditures have taken up an increasing share of the GNP. He also asked whether equality meant that the Federal Government should transfer its deficit to the provinces. Is that how we should administer our community?

I could go on and tell you what the Canadian Medical Association has to say and what the National Federation of Nurses Union had to say. Maybe one of my confreres, the Hon. Member for Saint Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano), might tell us what they had to say. They are certainly not very pleased. Then there is the Canadian Federation of Students and the Canadian Health Coalition.
What I have been trying to say is that so many people are so unhappy, so many people have expressed their concerns, so many people have let Members of this House know that they are dissatisfied with this Government's undertakings. I request the Government to reconsider its action sincerely and perhaps change the Bill.


Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question to my honourable colleague for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) who mentioned the Quebec Budget and the fact that, because of the impact of Bill C-96, the Quebec Finance Minister had to increase health insurance premiums. Until only a few months ago, the employers paid 3 per cent of the aggregate remuneration of their workers into the health insurance fund, but because of Bill C-96, the Minister of Finance has had to increase their contributions. Since the small business sector pays more in salaries than any other sector, it must indirectly pay the cost of Bill C-96 and of the reduction in provincial transfers.
Will the Hon. Member tell us, since she referred to the Quebec Budget, what the situation is, and specifically what its effects will be? I suppose there are small businesses in her constituency-what is the response of those small businesses in her constituency?


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member. There will no doubt be a negative impact on employers and employees in small and medium-sized businesses. They will have to pay more in Quebec, because of the incredible shortfalls in this legislation that will have to be covered. The shortfall will come to $82.3 million in fiscal year 1986-1987, to $174.9 in 1987, to $270,000 in 1988 and going right through to 1989-1990 there will be a $3,089.2 billion shortfall to be filled by way of taxes on small and medium-sized businesses.
June 12, 1986

And down at the bottom, the total between 1986 and 1992 will exceed the $2 billion mark. But who will have to provide that kind of money? The workers and the employers, especially in the small and medium business sector.
Mr. Speaker, I thank you for this opportunity to express the disapointment of all those people, the fact that they are 110 per cent disappointed with this Government's actions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to say that seldom have we witnessed in this Chamber a more eloquent or visionary speech than that given by my colleague, the Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone).


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: You weren't even here.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Oh, indeed I was. I was listening to every word. I was captivated, not only by the Member's description of the problems which befall our health and educational institutions today, but by her concern and vision for the future. Too many Members in this place are preoccupied with today's or tomorrow's headlines. Too few have any vision of the kind of society we want to build in the country. Many of us think in terms of preserving that which already exists. Too few of us understand that we are still building a Canadian society. I appreciated that refreshing dimension of the Hon. Member's remarks.
Will the Member share with Members of Parliament her insights into the kind of society she sees Canada evolving into if the philosophy of this Bill of passing the burden of health and education on to the provinces is expanded into other areas and plays a role in the shaping of our society? Perhaps she could share with us as well her vision of the kind of society we are capable of becoming if we can put behind us the bottom line accountant's mentality of how a country is served by its Government.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague. I find the challenge almost a defi de taille, comme on dit. Although I have not the wisdom to fulfil the Member's request, 1 have the conviction that if we do not expend our energies constructively in the areas of post-secondary education and care and concern we are going to return ourselves to the three monkeys' world: see not, hear not, and speak not. We will see not because we cannot bear to look. We will hear not because the sound will be too harsh and too hard on the heart to hear. We will speak not because we should be struck dumb and speechless.
We live in the most beautiful of lands. We are blessed with a vastness of space and a beauty of surrounding that is beyond belief. Everyone of us has had the opportunity to travel this
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
land and make comparisons to other places. Believe me, we are many times blessed. We will throw away that heritage and lose the advance potential if we do not place our efforts and energies where they will be the most productive in the long run.
I thank the Hon. Member for mentioning the eyes of the Finance Minister (Mr. Wilson). I often think that all I see there is a very handsome superman grin with eyeballs that look like dollar bills. That is not the society that this country wants and it is not the society that elected the Government to office. The Government was not elected to undertake undercuttings which will lower the quality of our lives and, more particularly, the lives of our children and grandchildren by cutting back on the primary areas which are the measure of a nation: health, the well-being of the elderly, the sick and the infirm, and the well-being of our children and their futures.
The place to invest is in the minds of our young people, in training,'education and retraining to the highest level in the world. We will then be competitive. We will then not have to worry about whether we negotiate sectorally or bilaterally, or whether we are continentalists or internationalists. We will be the finest and the best in two languages which we should all speak. We must respect the multicultural tapestry and background which is the beauty of this land.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the Parties. Normally we would sit until 10.20 this evening in order to make up for the time which was taken up by the Minister's statement and the responses to it. We have decided that, in view of the long sittings, it would be more appropriate to adjourn the House at 10 p.m. and go immediately to the adjournment debate at that time. Those parties who are involved in the adjournment debate have been notified and the Parliamentary Secretaries will be here to reply. I think you will find there is agreement for that among the Parties.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this point of order. At the request of the Government we have checked with our Members. One of them who was prepared to speak in the adjournment debate has decided to wait until tomorrow to comply with the request of the Government. We are, therefore, agreeable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: As usual the House has shown great kindness. Agreed and so ordered.
Resuming debate.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, this evening I would like to set out the history and future of medicare, one of the programs which the decrease in funding we are debating tonight is all about. Many years ago the righteous energy of many Canadians, angered at a society in

June 12, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
which serious illness could mean economic ruin or the indignity of dependance on charity for many Canadian families, found political expression in the advocacy by Canadian democratic socialists of a public health plan to provide benefits to those who needed them without regard to their ability to pay. Publicly insured health services, prepaid collectively through progressive taxation, and available at no direct charge to patients, would recognize health as a fundamental need, like education, and would be the mark of a more fully human community.
The CCF in Saskatchewan, after its election in 1944, wasted no time in living up to its commitment to establish a provincial hospital insurance plan. Other provinces were to follow in the 1950s, with federal cost sharing finally accepted in 1957. The CCF in Saskatchewan again led the way, despite considerable opposition, in 1962, when it introduced a provincial medical insurance plan. Subsequently NDP pressure on the Liberal minority Government of 1963-68 led to the establishment of medicare in 1966. Direct 50/50 federal cost sharing of provincial medical insurance plans along the lines recommended by the royal commission on health services chaired by Mr. Justice Emmett Hall, which reported in 1964, was made available to provinces whose plans met five basic principles. Those five principles were and are public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessability. Most Progressive Conservative provincial Governments resisted, but by 1972 all had responded to the double effect of federal money and public demand.
Ideological prejudices against medicare simmered for a decade when there was plenty of money, but soon a context for renewed hope on the part of medicare's philosophical opponents was provided by the increasing cost and therapeutic limits of the entrenched health care models, by the actions of the former Liberal federal Government in reducing its funding while calling for tougher national standards, and by the recession of the early 1980s.
In the absence of the kind of economic growth that complemented the expansion of medicare and other aspects of the modern welfare state in Canada, Canadians have for some time had two choices before them. Prior to the passage of the Canada Health Act, the choice was often caricatured as a choice between a health care system based on caring, on real human community, and on the principles of medicare on the one hand, and a health care system characterized by high and rising premiums, user-fees, extra billing and privatization of health services.
The Canada Health Act, passed unanimously by this House, could and should have been a statement of our commitment as a society to preserve medicare and its principles by whatever redistribution of wealth and power it takes to keep it and improve upon it. It should have settled the matter. It should have represented a choice. However, it did not. Instead it appears that our suspicions at the time of the debate on the Canada Health Act, that Conservative support of the Act was purely tactical and not from the heart, were all too wellfounded. The long-term effects of the cut-backs we are debating today will be to do through the back door, indirectly, what the Tories did not have the ideological courage to do openly, put pressure on our health care system and seek more opportunities for patient financial input instead of looking for ways to make our health care system more efficient and new sources of public revenue through a review of the tax system.
The health care model which forms and shapes the insured hospital and medical services available through medicare needs to be substantially reformed. Among other things, we have to critically re-evaluate the role of doctors in health care delivery; the way in which we use expensive medical technology; and the persistent lack of attention to the preventive side of health care. The emphasis within the established medical model on the treatment of illness and the relative neglect of disease prevention and health promotion goes hand-in-hand with the current role of doctors and technology in that doctors and the technology they employ tend to focus almost exclusively on the sick. The increasing cost of new technology in combination with the open-ended income expectations of many doctors all have to be met from a finite number of public health care dollars and at the expense of other health care priorities such as adequate nursing staff, home care alternatives and phar-macare, to name only a few areas that will become even more demanding as our population ages, with the pharmaceutical needs of our population about to be aggravated by the planned changes to the generic drug laws, a change which could add over $200 million a year to Canada's health care bill. A serious debate on the allocation of Canada's health care dollars is long overdue. The public should demand such a debate and the information they need to meaningfully participate.
We should be moving in the direction of a health care model which, instead of being dominated by doctors, looks more like a professional team of differently trained health care practitioners, all working together, each doing what they can do best in the least costly setting to provide health care which is integrated with and sensitive to the life of the whole person and the community to which people belong.
To these ends the NDP supported the amendment to the Canada Health Act which introduced the concept of health care practitioner. We successfully moved and argued for an amendment to the preamble to the Act which made it clear that any future improvements in Canadian well-being would be dependent upon "collective action against social, environmental and occupational causes of disease."
Actions taken by the previous Liberal federal Government often provided Progressive Conservative provincial Governments with handy excuses and political cover for health care policies which they philosophically preferred in any case. The April, 1982 unilateral cut-back in federal funding should be particularly remembered at a time when we are debating Bill C-96, an Act to unilaterally reduce federal transfer payments to the provinces. Now it is the Liberals who are outraged and the Tories, who were outraged in 1982, are contradicting themselves. The argument that they did not know about the
June 12, 1986

deficit is not very credible. In the election of 1984 they ran on the deficit.
Even before 1982, specifically in 1977, structural damage was done to medicare through federal block funding of medicare and abandonment of the direct 50/50 cost sharing, something the NDP opposed. We predicted, and unfortunately we were right, that such a withdrawal of active participation by the federal Government would result in an erosion of the principles of medicare by Progressive Conservative provincial Governments. The Liberals admitted at the time that they were gambling with medicare. By 1979 the gamble was over and they had lost.
Canada was at the beginning of what came to be known as the "medicare crisis". In 1980 the health services review conducted by Mr. Justice Emmett Hall recommended federal action against extra billing. In 1981 the Special Parliamentary Task Force on Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements recommended federal action against extra billing and user-fees, and advised that there be no cut-backs in federal funding because, and this is still the case, federal transfer payments were not seen to be a cause of the deficit.
In 1984, after cut-backs in federal funding and five years after the crisis began, the Liberals finally moved against extra billing and user-fees with the Canada Health Act which enabled the federal Government to penalize on a dollar for dollar basis those provinces which continued to allow extra billing and user-fees. The Government withdrew one dollar of federal money for every dollar collected through extra billing or user-fees. However, we in the NDP, and I think a great many other Canadians as well, are under no illusions about the ability of the Canada Health Act to deal with the underlying problems which beset the future of medicare in Canada. On this score the Canada Health Act was a tragic failure. A golden opportunity to enhance the future of health care in our country was missed.
The Canada Health Act addressed the problem of preserving the principles of medicare. It did little or nothing to change the present health care model, and then only symbolically. It did absolutely nothing to restore a sense of federal commitment at the funding level to the future of medicare, a failure which is coming home to roost now in 1986 when we are, once again, debating unilateral cut-backs in federal support for medicare. Full federal-provincial partnership in health care still needs to be re-established and Bill C-96, instead of doing that, further damages that federal-provincial partnership.
Leadership must be provided at the federal level in pioneering new health care directions through direct federal costsharing with provinces willing to take on the difficult but necessary task of developing alternative health care models. Leadership could also be provided at the federal level in creating and redistributing the wealth necessary to fund the health care system of the future. Leadership must also be shown in getting Canadians and their Governments to realize
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
that in the final analysis good health is intimately related to everything else in our life, individually and collectively.
Instead we are faced with Bill C-96, a Bill which does two things. It leaves the problem of reforming our health care system to the provinces, and it asks them to do this with less money than the already limited sums they would have had if there were no unilateral cut-backs.
I am afraid that, under the circumstances, the cumulative pressure of continuing federal cut-backs, given the inertia and power of the established health care model, will be an increased temptation on the part of provincial Governments, particularly those which are not strongly committed to the principles of medicare, to seek more opportunities for private money, or user fees, to be a part of our health care system. This could be complemented to a degree by public demand, by those who can afford it, to be able to exercise such private buying power, in order to get to the head of the increasing lineups for quality health care that will increasingly be created by starving the health care system of money. This is what I mean when I say the Conservatives are doing by the back door what they do not have the courage to do by the front door. Quality in our health care system, in terms of service, accessibility and care, is bound to decline, as, for demographic and technological reasons, medicare is asked to do more and more with less and less, and Canadians who can afford to pay to get better care will increasingly want to have that opportunity.
The pressure will be on with respect to hospitals for instance, for profit-oriented hospitals. The pressure is already on with pilot projects like the one in Hawkesbury, Ontario, under way for some time. I would like to deal with this issue for a moment if I have the time.
For-profit hospitals most certainly would be part of a trend to a two-tiered or multi-tiered health care system, a trend which would have a negative effect on the long-standing and often realized Canadian objective of equity, or equal access to quality comprehensive health care. This would be compounded over the years by a fragmentation of public support for public funding of health care, as those who felt they could afford some of the frills or services otherwise offered by for-profit hospitals would tend to make distinctions between themselves and other Canadians.
Though we often talk about health care consumers, a phrase I have never liked, the introduction of for-profit hospitals could bring out all the values implicit in such a term, and reintroduce the consumption of status as a component of our health care system. Those with the least status and income would eventually be reduced to wards of a weakened public system, as is the case in the U.S.A., or victims of the worst private operators, as is often the case in nursing home care right now in many provinces.
Americans who favour for-profit hospitals and the multitiered health care system that is to be found in the U.S. often call their system "pluralistic". This is an inappropriate use of a word or concept generally used to designate room for a variety

June 12, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
of values or cultures, not a variety of health care levels available on the basis of ability to pay.
The proliferation of for-profit hospitals would have a negative effect on public funding of health care for another reason, and one which should be particularly noted by those who often argue that our system is underfunded, but who also argue for increased privatization. By this I mean that to the degree that for-profit hospitals seem to be acceptable, that will be the degree to which federal and provincial Governments pass the buck on down to hospitals themselves when it comes to containing deficits.
The argument in favour of for-profit hospitals often comes from those who are ostensibly, and often genuinely concerned about the rising cost of health care, and who equate efficiency with anything that operates on a profit basis. This way of arguing in favour of for-profit hospitals ignores the many examples in Canada of publicly administered hospitals that are well run, as documented even by Bud Sherman, the former Minister of Health for Manitoba in his study done for the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp).
The argument in favour of for-profit hospitals also completely ignores the fact that soaring health costs in the United States, where for-profit hospitals are abundant and where public health insurance is limited, are even more of a problem than they are here in Canada.
Let us briefly compare the United States and Canada. One of the criticisms levelled at the Canadian system has been its lack of accountability, the fact that the open-ended nature of our publicly funded system encourages both providers and patients to be less conscious than they should be of how the limited resources of our health care system are allocated.
This is precisely the problem, i.e., lack of accountability that is found to a large degree in the U.S. where employees are covered by employer funded health insurance. Now efforts are being made by corporations like Chrysler to get these skyrocketing costs under control. Most of what they have done has been in the way of containing and shaping the choices which health care providers make. In their system, as in ours, it is the provider decision, mainly doctors' decisions and hospital decisions, and not patient choices, which determine how expensive health care will be. Americans spent 11 per cent of their GNP in 1984 on health care, compared to 8 or 9 per cent in Canada. For this many Americans got considerably less than what Canadians have access to in the way of health care. On top of this it is well known that a much larger percentage of U.S. health care dollars is spent on administrative costs, some 16 per cent as opposed to 2 to 4 per cent in Canada and the United Kingdom.
Add to this the irrational competition which takes place between hospitals in the U.S., particularly in the high-tech fields of medicine, the tendency for smaller independent hospitals to lose out to or have to sell out to the larger hospital chains, and the rationalization at the expense of regional needs, which may accompany this, and one gets a far different
picture of the virtues of the profit motive as it applies to health care. It is certainly not any more efficient than our system and is arguably much less efficient.
Those whose real interests is the containment of health care costs should look elsewhere to other than for-profit hospitals. Privatization and for-profit health care simply cannot deal with the more fundamental problems facing our health care system. Indeed, they will aggravate them. For-profit hospital care could well aggravate rather than alleviate the following problems; inequalities and access to hospital services; the problems associated with expensive medical technology; the geographic and professional maldistribution of doctors, despite aggregate over-supply; the emphasis on curative care to the neglected primary and public care; the duplication of expensive programs and services; the under utilization of non-medical manpower.
In all these areas it is most certainly true that a for-profit hospital system has no edge, and will likely be inferior, on top of preventing the kind of public discussion and debate that should take place about the difficult decisions that have to be made concerning the spending of health care dollars. These are decisions that should be public in nature as they have to do with values, and should not be left up to the market-place.
All this, it seems to me, argues for a conclusion that what is needed is better planning and management of our publicly funded, non-profit health care system, and the corollary that for-profit solutions should be left only to those, who for ideological rather than analytical reasons, prefer such solutions in the first place.
As Harvard University Management Professor Diane Burrett wrote in an article on multi-institutional systems in the April, 1982 edition of Hospitals Magazine, the key difference between those institutions which are meeting the challenge of needed major changes, such as changing the behaviour patterns of physicians and patients, does not seem to be whether or not the institution is or is not profit-making. "The real distinction seems to be between those institutions that are truly well managed and those that are rather haphazardly managed."
The drive for privatization and for-profit hospitals here in Canada is, in part, motivated by desire on the part of certain health care providers to shift power away from health care planning of the public kind. It is a drive that points away rather than toward the kind of planning that will be needed on the supply side of health care to deal with regional needs, with physician behaviour, with the profusion and diffusion of technology, with excessive reliance on fee-for-service mechanisms, with unnecessary hospitalization, prolonged length of stay in hospitals and unnecessary surgery.
In all of these problem areas, there is a need for sound public management, complemented by informed discussion and adequate public funding. This will allow the difficult
June 12, 1986

decisions that must be made about allocation of health care dollars to be made with a view to better health and a disciplining of everyone involved in health care rather than with a view to the interests of the very few who might benefit from a shift to for-profit hospitals and all that that would mean.
Given what I believe is the clear philosophical superiority of a non-profit approach, and the fact that a for-profit approach is not demonstrably superior in any practical way and will probably worsen the problem, it behoves Canadians to: "Leave the for-profit road untaken", to paraphrase a great American poet. "And that will make all the difference." There is no conflict between the virtue of non-profit health care and the vicissitudes of good management. All that is needed is the political will to raise the money and create the system that will enable our health care practitioners to innovate and do new things on the preventive and integrative side, in harmony with the principles of medicare, and in a way that does not threaten the funding of the established model.
The health care model of the future must be allowed to grow within and alongside the current system. More money, rather than less, will be needed for this to happen. Otherwise, rather than a creative transition we will have what can only be called retrogression and the re-emergence of the very inequalities that the founders of medicare set out to eliminate.
Finally, medicare and its principles will only be as valued as the quality of the health care system itself. Equal access to deteriorating equipment and facilities is not what the founders of medicare had in mind. For medicare to be preserved, it must be well funded. For medicare to be transformed, it must be well funded. For medicare to be destroyed, all that needs to happen is to have the current federal funding trend continue. We must not let that happen.
New Democrats realize that the strongest medicare principles imaginable will be powerless against such things as individual carelessness about one's health, traffic injuries due to drunken driving, exposure to hazards in the workplace, carcinogens in our food and water, or malnutrition and bad pre-natal and peri-natal care due to inner city poverty. That is why we will not be afraid to advance the health of Canadians by asking the fundamental economic and political questions that have to be raised in connection with over-all health care policy. We know that in spite of our attachment to the history and the future of medicare, the battle for medicare is not just the battle for a particular health care insurance system or a particular health care model. It is a battle for that total health which can only come as we achieve greater social, economic and ecological justice. All Canadians are invited to join with us in that common cause and oppose the passage of Bill C-96.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague on his speech.


David Charles Dingwall: He is a great speaker.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I could even criticize a couple of his comments, but I will not do it here.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
My question deals with the current situation with doctors in Ontario and Saskatchewan and the fiscal ability of the provinces to continue the level of medical practice and services in the provinces.
What effect will this legislation have on the fiscal ability of provinces to maintain the level of services and payments to doctors?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, I believe I partially answered that question in my speech. It is clear that any reduction in funding to the provinces makes it more difficult for them to do what they want. One of the requirements of their health care systems is to pay doctors and meet the increasing expectations of a growing medical community. This is one of the many problems that I listed and which a simple cut-back in funding does not address. It simply passes the problem on to the provinces.
Ontario doctors are on strike at this moment, some 24 years after the first strike of that nature in 1962.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I was there.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: The Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) was deeply involved in the political life of Saskatchewan at that time, as he is now. I am sure we would do well to have the benefit of his reminiscences about that strike.
The Liberal Government in Ontario has moved to ban extra billing in that province. The doctors are resisting this move, as they have resisted it in other provinces. However, Ontario is the province in which most of the extra billing took place and we see that the resistance is much stronger in Ontario and Alberta. The resistance in the Atlantic provinces and other Canadian provinces was not very strong because when the provincial governments realized they would have to pay certain penalties as a result of the Canada Health Act, they quickly passed legislation and came to an agreement with their doctors. However, in Ontario-the locus of extra billing- there is much stronger resistance. I find it regrettable that the doctors in Ontario have chosen to take this action.
I know that there are many doctors who are not on strike and I compliment them. However, it is regrettable that the doctors have chosen to act in this way because what is perfectly clear is that they are snubbing their nose at the unanimous view of the House of Commons of Canada. The Canada Health Act was passed in this House unanimously, without one dissenting murmur, in the spring of 1984. The Ontario doctors, through their action, are basically telling the House of Commons to go to hell. That is what they are telling the people of Canada who, through their elected representatives in the House of Commons, stated unanimously that we have come to the point in the history of medicare when extra billing by physicians is no longer tolerated. Yet, we are seeing what is happening in Ontario today.
I am confident that the doctors can only do themselves harm by this action. They can only damage that doctor-patient relationship which they say they value so much. In the past,

June 12, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
that relationship seemed to very much centre around this financial transaction called extra billing. That that exchange of money is more sacred to the professional doctor-patient relationship than making themselves available to their patients, is a mystery to me. If the doctors had any remaining claim to professional integrity, they would not have gone on strike in the first place.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Will my hon. friend explain the implications of this legislation on the provinces in terms of their ability to negotiate fees with the medical profession, which is a perfectly legitimate subject for the medical profession to discuss with hospitals and with governments at all three levels? 2100 Would the Hon. Member tell us if the decrease in the increase, what this Bill calls for, does in fact inhibit the provinces from reaching settlements with the medical profession in all provinces and, particularly at this moment, in Ontario, because of the decreased amount of funds the provinces can look forward to over the next two or three years?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, of course, the decrease in the increase will have that effect not just in Ontario but in all provinces. I think what has to be realized is that it is very easy, when one talks about federal transfer payments, to get caught up in what the effect will be next year or even the year after. But what needs to be noticed in this debate-and I have paid some attention to this issue over the years, and was on the task force of federal-provincial financial payments in 1981-is the structural changes which are effected by successive federal Governments on the original 50/50 partnership. We said then that even though there was a time when it looked like the provinces were getting the better part of the deal because the federal Government was spending 60 per cent, 65 per cent and even 70 per cent in some provinces, if my memory serves me correctly, of the money spent on health care, the long-term trend in a block funding structure was in favour of the federal Government, particularly because of the established practice that the federal Government could act unilaterally. That was established regrettably by the Liberal Government and the Conservatives are now picking up on it.
That means we have a system which has to carry on, no matter what, and the federal Government can act unilaterally to reduce its share of the partnership, leaving the provinces in the very situation, to be historically accurate, in which a lot of Progressive Conservative premiers predicted they would be in in the late 1960s, when they did not want to go into medicare in the first place. They said they would just get in there and the federal Government would back out and leave them holding the bag.
The provinces are not yet completely holding the bag, but the way it is set up now, the provinces will be left holding the bag. Those Tory premiers of the late 1960s were not all wrong. The reason they were not all wrong is because of the actions of the Liberal federal Government in the early 1980s and now, ironically, the actions of a Conservative Government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Debate.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise to debate Bill C-96. Earlier this evening I had an opportunity to meet with several distinguished Canadians over dinner, some of whom have a very profound interest in the subject matter we are debating tonight. I happened to take a few notes in summarizing some of the points they wished me to make with regard to Bill C-96. For the edification of Hon. Members of the House, I would like to describe very briefly what those concerns are. Knowing of your great interest in the subject matter, Mr. Speaker, I am certain without qualification, and I say this with great respect to you, Sir, you would not want to disagree with the proposition I am going to put forward at this time. The summary of that gathering earlier this evening alludes to five points. Collectively, I think they would have a very profound effect on all Hon. Members of the House.
I have to say at the outset that I am somewhat disturbed, if not appalled, as I look across the aisle. I am not going to mention the absence of Ministers of the Crown. That is not my intention, but I have to say in terms of the quality as well as the quantity of Hon. Members opposite, particularly Ministers of the Crown, there is a lot to be desired. I shall leave it at that.
I will now summarize the points this distinguished delegation made to me earlier in the evening. They believe that the federal Government should not cut its contributions to postsecondary education because Canada is experiencing fundamental technology changes and our youth need more training and education to adequately face tomorrow's challenges. The federal Government should not have cut its contributions to health care since the Canadian population is aging and new sophisticated medical equipment is costly.
The federal Government failed to respect the five-year tradition of the federal-provincial agreements. The federal Government should review its priorities. On the one hand, it has reimbursed the uninsured depositors of failed banks, exempted capital gains from taxation, gradually stopped taxing oil and gas in the producing provinces and increased RRSP deductions. On the other hand, it is cutting health care and post-secondary education. Finally, the group asked me to convey to Hon. Members of the House that the federal Government should have convened a federal-provincial summit to reform the 1977 EPF Act to ensure that all transfers are effectively used by the provinces for health care and postsecondary education. That, very succinctly, describes their concerns. It describes the concerns Canadians from coast to coast have with regard to Bill C-96.
In debating the substance of this particular Bill, I think I have to take strong exception to some of the propositions and rhetoric being advocated by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Vincent). I know he is a young individual who is aspiring to become a Member of the Cabinet. However, when one stands in his place as a Parliamentary
June 12, 1986

Secretary to a Minister of the Crown, in my view, one ought to speak from fact and not from aspirations for one's self gain. Unfortunately, the Government of the day, as represented by its Parliamentary Secretary, has said that there will be no reduction in EPF in real terms. I found that difficult to believe. Perhaps the greatest friend of the Government is the First Minister of the Province of New Brunswick who happens to be the Premier. It was the Premier's Minister of Finance who seconded a motion put forward before the Assembly in the Province of New Brunswick condemning the Government for the contents of Bill C-96. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read the motion moved by none other than the next Premier of the Province, the Honourable Frank McKenna, which was amended by the Minister of Finance, the Honourable Mr. Baxter, Q.C. I am sure all Hon. Members will find it interesting. The motion reads as follows:
WHEREAS the Government of Canada has announced that the rate of growth in transfer payments under the Established Programs Financing Act will be decreased commencing in 1986; and
WHEREAS this reduction in the rate of growth will cost New Brunswick $9 million this year and will total an estimated $160 million by 1990-91;
That is clear, demonstrable evidence which ought to be taken by all Members of Parliament, particularly those Members opposite. When they stand in their place and say in a very cordial way, with every courtesy, to Members of Parliament that there will be no negative effects upon the province, they should take note that this is a motion, passed by a provincial assembly, which clearly spells out that the opposite effect will take place.
The motion goes on to include a number of items. I wish to table this motion for the benefit of all Hon. Members so they can perhaps read and understand the substance of it. Its essence is that it points out very clearly that the provinces will be affected negatively this fiscal year and in subsequent years. The Province of New Brunswick does not yet have a heritage fund. It cannot draw upon revenues which were produced at an earlier time to absorb the costs as they relate to education and health care.
Surely any reasonable Member opposite-in fact any Member on this side of the House-ought to conclude that the effect of this legislation will be devastating to the economy of New Brunswick. Surely New Brunswick ought to be equal to the Province of Alberta and to the other provinces of Canada. This legislation is not only taking money out of the economy of New Brunswick, but I respectfully suggest that it is in conflict with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides for equal opportunity and provisions for equalization so that in all parts of the country all Canadians, regardless of their geographical birthplace, will have an opportunity to receive those services which the national and provincial Governments wish to provide to their people.
I am a Liberal and Members opposite may say-
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It's no time to brag about it.


David Charles Dingwall: The Hon. Member tells me that I should not brag about it. Well, I am very proud to be a Liberal. I want to tell Hon. Members that I am not the only one in my Party or, indeed, elsewhere, who finds great difficulty with Bill C-96. I have to say to Members of Parliament that perhaps one of the most distinguished legal minds and jurists in this country, who I am sure appeals greatly to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes), who had an aspiring career in another avenue and whose career today is quickly on the decline, would have to agree with what the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada said. For the Chair and for Members opposite I wish to quote the words of the Chief Justice. He said:
It has been said by many people that education is too important to be left to educators. That may be true. But it is also true that education is too important to be left to ministers of finance.
Those are very telling words spoken by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. No Member, regardless of his or her partisan viewpoint, regardless of his or her ideology, and regardless of where they may stand on the substance of this issue, can disagree with the remarks of the Chief Justice of Canada when he alludes to the provisions of Bill C-96. He went on to state:
Please do not choke off the funding of universities. Canada must have good universities with outstanding teachers and world-class research facilities.
Let us ask ourselves what this does for the people of the Province of New Brunswick. Hon. Members have heard the unanimous resolution which was passed by the Legislature of that province. They have heard of the $9 million in cut-backs in 1986-87. They have heard that by 1990-91 the amount of expenditures that will take place in that province in terms of these two subjects will be reduced by $160 million. I ask: Is this Bill not discriminating against the people of New Brunswick? I am certain that the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) would agree that it is.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Agreed.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member agrees with what I have said. He is trying to be a Liberal, but he has a long way to go.
It is worth noting that not only the Legislature of the Province of New Brunswick strongly opposes Bill C-96, but the great Province of Manitoba has great difficulties with the Bill as well. However, before I deal with that province I would like to turn to comments made by the Canadian Medical Association. What has it said with regard to Bill C-96 and how it will affect the lives of Canadians? As evidenced by the number of cabinet Ministers here tonight, we know that they are not concerned. Well, we are concerned. We are very concerned about the effects that this Bill will have on the lives, both healthwise and educationwise, of Canadians. The Canadian Medical Association stated the following:
The federal Government must ensure that its proposed legislation, that will reduce the amount of budget increases for health care is applied on a short-term
14348

June 12, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
basis only and that it exclude the Atlantic provinces. In addition, the federal and provincial Governments should proceed immediately to negotiate a formal agreement for the future financing of health care in Canada.
I will table this document for the edification of Members opposite, particularly for the edification of the Whip of the Conservative Party who I know has an abiding concern for the health and welfare of Atlantic Canadians. He demonstrates his concern by his presence here tonight. The medical association states:
Although the Atlantic provinces spend more of their provincial revenues on health care than do other provinces, there are disparities in the range of services available to their populations... "If special provisions are not made for the health care system in the Atlantic provinces we can only expect disparities to widen and the national character of health care in Canada to be seriously endangered."
I ask this House, not in a partisan way, but on behalf of Atlantic Canadians: Where have the members of Cabinet from Atlantic Canada been with regard to the provisions of Bill C-96? Where has the Minister of Supply and Services been? What has he said in this regard? Where have the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) and the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) been? Where has the Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) been? Where have they all been? They have been silent. That only leads us as Canadians-not as partisan Liberal Canadians but as Canadians-to conclude that they agree with the intent of the purposes of the Bill which, as I said at the outset, is clearly and unequivocally discriminating against the four Atlantic provinces.
As a Canadian, I am appalled that Members opposite have allowed this legislation to go as far as it has gone with no amendment emanating from them. I am appalled that members of the Government have allowed this sort of discrimination and deterioration of services in health care and in the post-secondary education field to continue and to be exacerbated.
In another life the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), that paragon of equity, that great Minister who wishes to have equity in the system throughout, said something different when he sat as a Member in opposition. Again, for the record I wish to quote the words of the Minister of Finance. This is what he said on March 23, 1982:
The only sign it shows of cutting spending is by shifting the burden of the established programs funding on to the provincial governments. The provinces are now moving into a deficit position, a position which will make it more difficult for them to finance this shift in spending ... That is not co-operative federalism. That is predatory federalism, and it will not and cannot work in this country.
That is what the Minister of Finance said when he was a member of the Opposition. However, to show the contradiction and the hypocrisy, not only of the individual but of the Government of the day, I viewed firsthand a First Ministers' conference in the Province of Nova Scotia in that great capital city of Halifax.
At that conference, premier after premier said to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney): "Mr. Prime Minister, keep your word. Please don't cut EPF for fiscal year 1986-87". The Prime Minister, aided and abetted by the Minister of Finance snubbed those premiers. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, in your capacity as the objective person in the House, would not condone such ill-advised behaviour on the part of the Prime Minister.
What was more devastating to the people of Canada was what happened after the conference was over. The Government tried to portray an image of attempting on bended knee to assist the poor provinces of Canada. The facts indicate otherwise. The Premier of the Province of Newfoundland, assisted by the Premier of British Columbia, said: "A deal is a deal is a deal and you have broken your word, Mr. Prime Minister".
Looking at what took place at Halifax and what is taking place today with the Prime Minister travelling throughout the country with his video cameras, his flags and his podiums, we understand where the priorities are. Are the Nova Scotians, Newfoundlanders or the great people of British Columbia and Alberta the priority? No, the priority is the great one, the president of Canada-I mean the Prime Minister of Canada. He can return to his living room to see in living colour the wonderful, magnificent blunders he is making on free trade and regional economic development.
I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are indicating I have two minutes-no, one more minute left. I say to the Prime Minister who has a Colgate smile and can sing like no other Prime Minister that he has his priorities wrong. He should rise in the House of Commons to defend health care and embellish upon the facilities and opportunities for the sick. He ought to rise in his place to say to the young people of Canada that their education may have been good in the past but we have to make it better in the future. However, this Conservative Prime Minister is more concerned with embellishing upon his own egotistical behaviour and attitudes. If the Prime Minister has tenacity and guts, why does he not do the appropriate thing and call a general election now so that the people of Canada may have a choice? I demand a general election.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. I hope the Hon. Member will not mind a question and comment period before the election.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr Speaker, I listened with great interest and fascination to the speech made by my hon. friend from Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall). I would like to remind him that I lived through a doctors' strike in Saskatchewan and watched a Saskatchewan Liberal administration rule for seven lean, famine-stricken years-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mean years.
June 12, 1986

Mir. Benjamin: Yes, lean and mean. That administration brought in deterrent fees and extra medical charges. Would the Hon. Member tell all of us if the Liberal Party has had a change of heart? If it has had a change of heart, I will applaud the Hon. Member for saying so. I would like the hon. gentleman to say whether or not the Liberal Party has had a change of heart since what happened under a Liberal regime when medicare and hospitalization was in its infancy and there was a 23-day doctors' strike and doctors were allowed to charge extra.
Second, is it not correct that the change to the 1977 formula which this Government promised to restore began when the Liberal Party was still in power? Does that mean that his Party has now had a change of heart? If he will say so, we will applaud him.
Mir. Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, it is not often that I have an opportunity to respond to the Hon. Member for Regina West. However, because of the few years that I have been here, I do not have the experience both in age and in the number of years serving in Parliament-


Mr. Schellenberg:: You have the same amount of hair.


David Charles Dingwall: The Hon. Member is talking about hair. I was coming to that conclusion myself. There is one glaring similarity between us. We both have the same barber.
In his usual eloquent way, the Hon. Member talks about heart. In the years I have represented my constituency, I have not, with the greatest of respect, had to take lessons from the Hon. Member with regard to heart. I remind NDP Members, if they wish to be reminded and are prepared to listen, that it was not a national CCF Party that brought in medicare for Canadians, it was a Liberal Government and that fact ought not be disputed either by the Hon. Member to the left of me or by Hon. Members opposite.
In his second question, the Hon. Member made reference to the changes made in 1977 to the Established Programs Financing. I do not know if the Hon. Member intentionally or inadvertently forgot what happened in the years preceding 1977. Does he not realize that it was the collective will of the First Ministers across Canada, including members of the Hon. Member's own Party who were Members of provincial legislatures at the time, who asked time and time again that the Government create the 1977 formula? I could give more details about this, but suffice it to say that there was a will among the first Ministers, Parliament and Canadians that that formula ought to be changed from the fifty-fifty cost-sharing program, and I might add that this was being sought by my own province and by my sister and brother provinces as well.
I think in the long term it has proved to be not very beneficial to those regions. However, it was the will on the part of the First Ministers and Canadians of the day who sought out those changes for block funding. If there is a lesson to be
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
learned from block funding, it is that there are certain positive aspects to it in terms of budgetary preparations both for the provincial and federal Governments.
In fairness to the question put by the Hon. Member, all levels of Government have lost in the debate the clear objective of Established Programs Financing. It is supposed to be about people, people who want to be educated and people who want to be served under the health care system. That is the objective of the Established Programs Financing, whether we are talking about 1977, 1982, or 1986; that is the raison d'etre.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the earlier comments of the Hon. Member, because the better looking fellows in this place are him and I; we have the same hairdo. I wanted to refresh his memory that it was minority Parliaments in 1963 and 1965 which brought about medicare, thanks to people like Tommy Douglas and Justice Emmett Hall.
I wonder whether he would answer the question which I directed to him. Is it not true that the decreases in funding were begun by the Liberal Government and were only continued by the Tory Government? It did not start in 1984. It started back in 1977, 1978, and 1979. Is it not correct that there is nothing new about this with the Conservative Party and that it also started with his Party when it was in power??


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, as I said at the outset, I do not have the wealth of experience of the Hon. Member.


An Hon. Member:: That is a cop-out.


David Charles Dingwall: If I were given unanimous consent of the House, perhaps I would have the time to make a few more comments for the benefit of the Hon. Member opposite.
In any event, I cannot answer the question because I was not here. The Hon. Member very conveniently forgets some of the facts. He mentioned Tommy Douglas, a great Canadian. There is no question about that. I think all Hon. Members would unanimously agree. However, he forgot to mention the work and the efforts of a former Prime Minister, in the person of Mackenzie King.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Oh, come on!


David Charles Dingwall: Also he forgot to mention the contribution made by the Hon. Paul Martin and that of the Hon. Allan J. MacEachen, only to mention a few. Of course the grand-daddy of them all was the former Liberal Prime Minister, in the person of Lester B. Pearson, another great Liberal Canadian Prime Minister.
I hope the Hon. Member would want to reflect upon those remarks. His partisanship is becoming a little bit too much for him. He should take the time to reflect upon history, not only the books written by socialists in various universities across the country, but also some of the objective analyses which were written by a great number of Canadians and dealt with the social programs put in place by the Liberal Party of Canada and begrudgingly supported by the New Democratic Party.

June 12, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, this is a very dark day for Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: -and it is not because it is late at night. Bill C-96 is an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977. It should be entitled "the Conservative Government hacks away at post-secondary education and at care for the ill across the country". Frankly, the Bill is antipeople. It is an anti-youth Bill, and it discriminates against the poor regions.


Benno Friesen: When are you going to say "ordinary Canadians"?


Nelson Andrew Riis: It also discriminates against ordinary Canadians, generally speaking.
This is an extremely serious situation. Tonight we are debating whether or not to proceed with a Bill which, over the next five years including 1986, will see a reduction in payments for post-secondary education and health care to the provinces of Canada totalling some $5,600 million or $5.6 billion.


Ian Deans: That much?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes. It is an incredible amount of money; it is an unbelievable amount of money. It is a very clear indication of the priority of the Government. We have heard many Hon. Members across the aisle say that they cannot afford to improve the education of Canadians, both young and old, and that they cannot afford to provide decent health care for Canadians. However, there are all kinds of other things they can afford.


Ian Deans: What are they?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I hear the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). I do not have the time to give a long list tonight, but I should like to refer to two or three examples. It took one weekend for the Government to find $1 billion to bail out two banks.


Ian Deans: One billion dollars!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, $1,000 million in one weekend to bail out major depositors including the Bank of America, Citibank, the Bank of Hong Kong, and the Bank of Korea.


Ian Deans: Where did they get the money?


Nelson Andrew Riis: They got the money from the people of Canada. They said that $1,000 million for the bank bail-out was a priority, as was the $1,000 million for Dome Petroleum and the $1,000 million for the Gulf takeover. However, they did not have any money for education or additional health care.


Ian Deans: For sick people.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes, for sick people.


Ian Deans: They would give money to the banks but not to the young people?


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is correct, they would give money to the banks, mainly to foreign banks, but not to the young people of Canada. The priorities of the Government are very clear.
What makes it particularly troublesome for some of us, people like myself who represent constituencies in the Province of British Columbia, is that the province happens to be ruled by a Party which is anti-youth, anti-people, and anti-education. They are called the Socreds or the Social Credit Party of Canada.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They are the same as the Conservatives.


Nelson Andrew Riis: That is right. They are the same as the Conservatives in many respects.


Ian Deans: In fact a Conservative is running for the leadership.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain has made an interesting point. In fact, a number of Conservatives are actually running for the leadership of the Social Credit Party. I suspect there is an obvious linkage there. In any event, it has been anti-education for many years. As a result, I know of an instance in my constituency where a science class of 120 students is studying and has 26 textbooks to share. Another biology class, which obviously has advanced significantly in the knowledge of biology in the last few years, has a text book which is 18 years out of date or 18 years old. This is the kind of education to which they are subjected because the Socreds cannot afford education. As I said, the Conservatives have said that they cannot afford decent education in the country.
Let me put it into some context. First I refer to postsecondary education. Let us look at the top 20 OECD countries or the top western industrialized nations, as they are perhaps more commonly called, and at the money which they are putting into education, research, and development. All of them except one is investing more than ever before in postsecondary education. What country of all the western industrialized nations is cutting back on those investments? What country is cutting back investment in the most important resource of any country, namely, the human resource of a country? It is Canada. Of all OECD countries, Canada has failed to invest in its most important resource-the people of Canada.
Let us also look at the provinces, in particular the province which has failed to invest in these areas more than any other province. It is the Province of British Columbia. Not only do Canadians get the short end of the stick internationally, but people from British Columbia get the short end of the little stick in Canada. When you look within the Province of British Columbia and at which people get the short end of the British Columbia educational stick, it is those who have to live outside
June 12, 1986

of the lower mainland where there is access to universities, technical and vocational schools and various institutes. It costs much more to be educated if you happen to be living in the interior of British Columbia. The interior of British Columbia gets the short end of the stick in B.C.
The people of B.C. get the short end of the stick in Canada and Canada gets the short end of the stick internationally, so, Mr. Speaker, for some of us there is no stick left anymore. That is why we are very concerned about what Bill C-96 is doing. It is saying that we are going to be cutting back from the traditional kinds of investments which this country has made in post-secondary education and in health care.
It is interesting to see how people change their minds. The Liberals took a step in this direction when they were government. They introduced the 6-and 5-program during the time when inflation was running at a particularly high rate. They decided to cut back their contribution to post-secondary education and health care to 6 per cent and 5 per cent. This was a drastic cut.
At that time the then Finance critic for the Conservatives, who is the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), predicted that these cuts would result in closures of hospitals and cutbacks in post-secondary education. He went on and on about how regressive the action was, how it was a slap in the face to the people of Canada and how it was going to set back our education and health care systems many many years. Now that the Conservatives have changed sides and formed the Government of Canada, they have cut back much worse. This is not a 6-and 5-program for one or two years. These are cutbacks that, as I indicated, will result in a total of $5.6 billion over the next Five years, and on and on. It will compound. We are now seriously saying that we are not going to be investing in post-secondary education as we have in the past.
In my constituency, having spoken with the various college instructors and professors, having discussed the matter with representatives from Cariboo College, the Okanagan College, with university representatives in our area from the three major universities in British Columbia, with teachers, staff and principals of schools in the north Thompson area, the south Thompson area, Kamloops, Salmon Arm, Shuswap, Logan Lake and many other areas, they all say exactly the same thing. We cannot deliver the kind of education that people in 1986 require. We simply do not have adequate funds.
The universities make a particularly compelling case. They say that they are now having to cut back on research. The student enrolment numbers are increasing, the teaching loads are increasing and the work that professors normally would be doing in research is not being done. The same calibre of teaching is not there, and some of the best minds in Canada are saying that if this is indicative of the priorities of the Government, then it is time to take research staff, knowledge and expertise elsewhere.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
That is a very regressive situation developing in the country. We will have user fees in our hospitals, cuts in college funding and cuts in education funding generally, cuts in research and development. Now the Government says it expects the private sector to make up the difference in research. Again, that might, and I say might, work to a certain extent in central Canada, the industrial heartland of Canada, but when you get into Atlantic Canada, northern Canada or western Canada and if you are expecting the corporate sector in those regions to be funding vast amounts of research, you are dreaming in Technicolor. That simply will not occur. The ability to do that, even if the will is there, is simply non-existent.
The newspapers are filled with reports over the last number of days with various corporate presidents saying they would like to participate in R and D but that it is not a priority at this time. One of the vice-presidents of Canada Aeronautics of Ottawa, when asked why would the private sector participate in university research and development, replied "You got me". He does not understand why they would be encouraged to participate in research.
Let us look carefully at what has happened regarding this Bill. When the New Democratic Party wrote to every Premier in Canada, every Minister of Health and every Minister of Education to ask how they felt about this initiative by the Government, replies came from every province except two. One was the Province of Alberta which can, in a sense, be forgiven because it was in the middle of a provincial election. The Province did have the courtesy to at least acknowledge the letters, and said it was unable to reply. The Province of British Columbia failed to acknowledge the letters and failed to reply. It is typical of the Province of British Columbia when it comes to placing a priority on health care and education. B.C. was too busy, too uninterested.
In the second to last First Minister's conference, the Premier of British Columbia was applauding the Government for the cut-backs it was making in a variety of areas and failed to speak out against cut-backs in post-secondary education and health care. Only one province, in the replies which the New Democratic Party received regarding this Bill, said it thought the idea of cutting back on education and health care as per Bill C-96 was a good idea. That was the Province of Saskatchewan. Premier Devine said that this was an appropriate step for the Government to take, to put more and more burden on the provinces, to cut back in research and in the kind of education and health care system which Canadians have been developing over the last number of years. He was the only Premier to suggest that that was an excellent idea, and he put it in writing.
Let us recognize that the overwhelming majority of people in Canada, represented by their Premiers and Ministers of Health and Education, made the representation to the Government that they felt it was an inappropriate step, that it was not the right thing to be doing with funding post-secondary education and health care. I thought this was a Government that was going to be interested in consultation, in

June 12, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
listening to the provinces and other political jurisdictions to come up with something that we all more or less agree on, and develop a consensus. But this is unilateral action. The Bill says: "We know that you do not like it, provinces, but we are going to jam this down your throats and cut back on the kind of funding we have been making over the years."
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this is not a particularly new development. It has been going on for some time. When you look at the data, you will notice that back in 1977 the funding for post-secondary education and health care between the federal Government and the provinces was fifty-fifty. Fifty per cent came from the provinces and 50 per cent came from the federal Government. Since 1977, this percentage has continuously been eroded over the years so that by 1990, based on the provisions of Bill C-96, the federal Government will be contributing only 36 per cent to post-secondary education and health care to the provinces of Canada. This means the overwhelming burden of these two areas will fall on provincial Governments. That means one of three things. First, either the services provided will have to be curtailed significantly or, second, additional user fees or increased tuition fees will be the rule of the day. Third, it could mean simply go and collect more taxes from the people in the provinces or add to the deficit of the provincial coffers. Any way you cut it, it is already bad news for provinces that with very few exceptions are hard pressed.
When you see the federal Government backing off from its commitment of 50-50 funding, it is particularly problematic in certain provinces. One of these provinces is British Columbia. The universities I suspect pointed out to all Members of Parliament that when you examine who it is that funds postsecondary education in the Province of British Columbia, it is the federal Government at 100 per cent.
The Province of British Columbia funds none of its postsecondary education. When the federal Government says that it is cutting back on its contribution, it is not a contribution but the sole provision of investment in post-secondary education in the Province of British Columbia. That is why some of us are particularly concerned. If we knew that the provincial Governments would make up the short-fall it would be one thing, but we are particularly alarmed because we know the attitude of the present Government in the Province of British Columbia on post-secondary education.
We are very concerned about the passage of this Bill. I notice that the Canadian Chamber of Commerce was the only witness which said this Bill was a great idea. I have always had some concerns about the progressive thinking of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce. This Bill will result in less money being spent on research and development and on the training and education of young and old Canadians. I simply do not understand that anyone could think this would be in the best interests of Canada and the Canadian economy. I am afraid
the Canadian Chamber of Commerce was totally off the mark on this particular issue.
We believe that this is a very regressive piece of legislation. We believe that this Bill is anti-people and anti-youth. It discriminates against the aged and the ill. It discriminates against the regions of Canada which are away from the central heartland. For those reasons I believe that this Bill ought not be passed. I look forward to hearing my friends and colleagues across the aisle in the Conservative Party stand in their places and explain where my analysis of this Bill has been incorrect or incomplete. Perhaps they could give us reasons why it is in Canada's interest to cut back on increases to funding for the post-secondary and health care institutions of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Are there any questions or comments? I will recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps). I am sorry, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).	.


Ian Deans: Much though I admire and respect my colleague, the Member for Hamilton East, I find it difficult to imagine that you can make such an error. I do not have nearly the leaping quality that she has.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Careful, careful.


Ian Deans: My colleague raised an interesting point. I want him to elaborate on it a little bit. I understood him to say that the measures being proposed by the Government would further reduce opportunities for young people in British Columbia to advance their education as a result of the fact that the Social Credit Government in British Columbia is already contributing so little to the post-secondary education facilities. I have always wondered about this and have never received an answer.
Is the Member suggesting that by virtue of the fact that at least one Conservative Member of Parliament is running for the leadership of the Social Credit Party, the difference between the Social Credit Party and the Conservative Party is nonexistent and that they are, in fact, one and the same? Is he suggesting that the policies of the Social Credit Party in British Columbia are the policies of the Conservative Party of Canada and that the policies of the Conservative Party of Canada are the policies of the Social Credit Party of British Columbia? Is he suggesting that by virtue of those two very close relationships, if you vote So-Cred in B.C. you are in fact voting for the Tory policy of the federal Conservative Party?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The answer is yes.


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is not difficult to answer that question, Mr. Speaker. I think my friend from Hamilton Mountain has summed it up admirably. A Conservative Member of Parliament who has been a member of this House for many, many years is running for the leadership of the Social Credit Party.


Ian Deans: He used to be a So-Cred.
June 12, 1986

Mir. Riis: At one time he was a So-Cred MLA from the Province of British Columbia. They interchange positions like some of us change socks. There are a number of Conservatives running for the leadership of the So-Cred Party in British Columbia. One would be hard pressed to find a single policy on which there is a difference between the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and the Social Credit Party of British Columbia. I know that my friends across the aisle may have long lists of such policy areas. I hope they will stand up and point them out.
We have seen what has happened in British Columbia. I challenge any of my friends in the House from British Columbia or elsewhere to stand up and say that what the Social Credit Party in British Columbia has done to education from kindergarten through post-graduate studies has been positive, progressive, or good. I ask them to stand in their place and say that. I do not think there is an educator in the world who is not absolutely aghast at what has gone on in that province in terms of anti-intellectual and anti-educational policies.
That is what they are doing and we make the linkage very carefully. That is why some of us are concerned about this particular Bill. We see the beginning of that trend now across Canada. We see that same regressive, mindless, thoughtless, anti-people type of policy. That is what concerns us.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, if the Ministers in the NDP Government of Manitoba did not use so many thousands of dollars of federal tax credits for their own personal use, we would have more money for education.


Ian Deans: I rise on a point of order. I would ask the Hon. Member to be cautious that he does not make allegations on a matter which is presently under judicial review. I think he would recognize, as all Members would, that such an allegation would be unfair and certainly unbecoming of this particular Member.


Gordon Edward Taylor: What is unbecoming is what you say about some of our Members.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We will have you under judicial review later.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, order! I appreciate the comments made by the Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) but this is really something which falls within the domain of the Speaker. I hope he was addressing his comments to the Chair rather than to the Hon. Member.


Ian Deans: Of course, always.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Now you can rule.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for coming a little late, but the place I come from is a very stimulating one for the conversations concerning what is going on now in the House of Commons. The people there, very well known for
Adjournment Debate
that matter by the Government members, were asking me: "How could the Government jeopardize two of the programs for which the rest of the world look enviously to Canada"? As I was saying, federal contributions to post-secondary education and especially to health care are the envy of the whole world. Now, for considerations not submitted to the Canadian people, the Government is in the process of jeopardizing these two programs. That is what I wanted to emphasize tonight I will develop this point tomorrow.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

James Kenneth (Jim) Jepson: Mr. Speaker, on April 24 I asked the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) about a tragedy which occurred recently in Ottawa. On January 23 of this year a young woman underwent an abortion at Ottawa Civic Hospital, but died because of complications arising out of that procedure. The report of the inquest revealed that the Criminal Code provisions respecting abortion had been all but ignored by hospital officials on the therapeutic abortion committee who had been given the very serious responsibility of protecting the rights of unborn children.
Under our laws abortion is illegal. This reflects the fact that it is morally wrong for a pregnant mother to kill the child she is carrying. Our laws do, however, make an exception where a mother's life or health is in danger in the opinion of the experts on a therapeutic abortion committee. Should a woman decide she wishes to consider an abortion, she can present her case to the committee for consideration and discussion.
At the Ottawa Civic Hospital, the interpretation of this law has been irresponsible in the extreme. No one connected with the hospital's therapeutic abortion committee seemed to know when this specific abortion was approved. Apparently it was already listed as approved on the day of the operation, two hours before the committee was to meet. Last year the Civic Hospital committee approved every application for abortion put before it, approximately 2,000 in total.
There can be no doubt that Canadian families, women, and unborn children are being victimized by a rubber stamp process of approving abortion requests. This has to be the most serious moral issue facing Canada because of the more than 65,000 deaths from abortion each year. We are fooled by the argument about the women who become pregnant through rape or incest. This year those situations accounted for

June 12, 1986
Adjournment Debate
approximately 150 pregnancies. Does this justify 64,850 other abortions? Obviously not.
The situation as it is now is policy making by default, since no one is taking any responsibility for enforcing the existing laws. All too often federal and provincial Governments are content to say that action lies in the jurisdiction of the other. It is up to the federal Government to demonstrate the intent of the federal legislation and encourage consistent and responsible application of all its provisions in all of our provinces and territories.
We have a law which is not obeyed, as we can see from the free- standing abortion clinics, or is abused by the hospitals which provide virtual abortion on demand. To leave such a status quo in place ignores our responsibility to provide workable laws for a just and orderly society. This is the law, but when hospitals and provincial agencies do not interpret its provisions as they were intended, it leaves the door open for the ongoing perpetuation of injustice. That is what is happening.
It is not the tragedy of one woman's death that we are condemning the committee for. Of course, she might well have lived with her baby if the committee had been responsible and met with her to discuss the merits of her case. The real tragedy of this case is the fact that there are literally thousands upon thousands of cases where a rubber stamp is all that is needed to end the life of an unborn child.
No one in Canada can say that there is not a special value to the life of an unborn child. Indeed, all must acknowledge that foetal life has a very special value. It is because of this belief that we have therapeutic abortion committees with the job of ensuring that the utmost recognition is given to the potential of the unborn child. It is quite reasonable to require the most compelling justifications for a woman's decision to have an abortion. Therapeutic abortion committees are not established to remove the obstacles to a woman getting an abortion. They are there to ensure that the abortion of a pregnancy is a last resort when the state of a woman's health leaves no other option.
I congratulate hospital officials in Prince Edward Island, who last week announced the decision to dismantle that province's last therapeutic abortion committee. If other provinces and the federal Government do not have the initiative to adhere to the workable legislation in this area, the hospitals of P.E.I. are doing the right thing by protecting the rights of unborn children.
The federal Government should make it clear to the provinces what we expect from them in concrete terms. I hope the Minister of Justice will take the leadership in this issue so that our Criminal Code can continue to provide protection for the lives of all Canadians, including unborn children.
In that vein I would urge the Minister of Justice to encourage the Attorney General of Ontario, Ian Scott, to close the second abortion clinic opened last week in Toronto in total
defiance of the law. We cannot and should not tolerate this act of defiance if we are to expect Canadians to respect our judicial system.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add some comments to the reply which was given on April 24, 1986 by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) to the Hon. Member for London East (Mr. Jepson) regarding the tragic death of the young Ottawa woman and the procedures followed by therapeutic abortion committees.
The Minister informed the House that the question of procedures followed by therapeutic abortion committees is a question of the administration of health and hospital services, which is the responsibility of the provinces.
In addition, it is my duty to present the Government's comments on the divisive issue that is abortion.
It is well known that abortion is one of the most hotly debated issues of recent times. By the nature of the subject, abortion is at once a moral, medical, legal, sociological, philosophical, demographic and psychological problem not readily amenable to one-dimensional thinking. It is commonplace to identify groups, be they religious, ethnic or political, on the basis of whether the group is in favour of or against abortion. Occasionally the division is expressed in terms of so-called liberal versus so-called conservative policy. What this approach fails to take into account is that there is no one single group in any society whose members have been able to arrive at complete unanimity of opinion on the issue. Even if such labels as pro or anti are acceptable, there is still failure to take cognizance of the wide range covered by such designations.
For example, existing so-called progressive abortion legislation includes laws which allow abortion on demand with no questions asked; those which allow abortions generally but require the pregnant woman to apply to a specially constructed board which would pass the applicant through a series of consultation and advisory board; and those which permit abortions on grounds of material welfare and extend the grounds for granting an abortion for socio-economic reasons. On the other side, existing so-called restrictive abortion laws include laws which prohibit abortion completely; those which permit abortions only to save the life of the mother; and those in which rape, incest, or foetal malformation would provide justifiable grounds.
Such divergence exists in the many disciplines which are touched by the subject of abortion. It is not uncommon to find participants in the discussion of this subject at immediate odds because of their different perspectives. The reason behind this lack of consensus is the fact that the subject touches on so many areas of a highly personal and emotive nature, such as morals and religion. Debate proceeds with reference only to the participants interests, convictions or expertise. There is a failure to recognize that a great number of different moral and social values exist in any society, and that it is by no means
June 12, 1986

easy, if not impossible, for one solution to commend itself to all men and women.
What Government seeks then is a compromise which satisfies the most, with offence and inconvenience to the fewest. There has been no lack of conferences and publications on this issue, and the various seminars and publications have, by and large, made a vital contribution to society by the dissemination of specialized and general information, and the education of the general public. Unfortunately, there have been many who have jumped on to the rhetorical bandwagon and have succeeded in contributing no more than further confusion to the issue. It is regrettable that a great body of poorly researched and overly subjective material exists in the whole area. It contributes nothing to an understanding of the problem, much less to a solution.


ATOMIC ENERGY CONTROL BOARD-APPOINTMENT INQUIRY. (B) REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, as we are only too well aware, since the nuclear reactor accident at Chernobyl in the Soviet Union, Canadians and all citizens of the world live in a nuclear age. In Canada, the Atomic Energy Control Board regulates the nuclear industry, so who is on that Control Board is important.
On April 15, 1985, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) sent a letter to Dr. Ursula Franklin, a distinguished Canadian, appointing her to the Atomic Energy Control Board. I have a copy of her letter which states:
May I say how pleased I am that you have agreed to serve in this capacity.
She also states:
I am delighted to confirm your appointment as a member of the Atomic Energy Control Board.
On April 22, 1985, Dr. Franklin received the Minister's letter that was sent on April 15.
On April 22, 1985, Dr. Franklin posted her letter of response, stating that she would like a clarification of the secrecy provisions of the Atomic Energy Control Board and of the relationship of the Board to the public. She did not refuse to accept an appointment. She says in her letter, of which I have a copy:
May I stress that I am not looking for private dispensation from the secrecy provisions but for a clarification of the relationship of the Board to the public.
On April 23, 1985, Dr. Franklin was informed by telephone from the Minister's office that the appointment was a mistake. Note that she is informed of this before the Minister's office actually received her letter, inquiring into the secrecy provisions.
On May 29, 1985, a letter was sent by the Minister to Dr. Franklin, informing her that her appointment to the Board by letter was sent in error. Clearly, between April 15, 1985, and April 23, 1985, the Cabinet vetoed the Minister's appointment while she was away in China.
Adjournment Debate
In answering a question put in the House by my leader, the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) tried to claim that the reason for the rescission of the appointment was that Dr. Franklin did not want the job because of the oath of secrecy. This is wrong, however, and actually a falsehood on the part of the Prime Minister because obviously the Cabinet had already refused to give the okay to the Minister's appointment.
Why did the Cabinet veto that appointment of a very distinguished Canadian? Did the Atomic Energy Control Board and members of the atomic industry lobby the Cabinet members when it became known to the nuclear industry that Dr. Franklin had been chosen by the Minister?
No replacement has been chosen and this position has been vacant for a year. Furthermore, Hugh Spence, an official of the Atomic Energy Control Board, stated publicly that he agrees with Dr. Franklin that the secrecy oath is badly worded, vague and needs to be changed. Why has the Government been so shabby in its treatment of Dr. Ursula Franklin of the University of Toronto? I believe that it was the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) who stopped this appointment because he did not like the credentials of Dr. Franklin and that she is an outspoken person. I think the industry obviously stopped the appointment of this person and I would like the ministry to tell us why the Prime Minister had his facts wrong about the appointment of Dr. Franklin. Why did the Government treat Dr. Franklin so shabbily?
I want to draw the Government's attention to The Canadian Encyclopedia to see the tremendous qualifications of Dr. Ursula Franklin. The Encyclopedia states:
She is a tireless advocate for Science for Peace. Her work has received worldwide recognition.
The Government shabbily withdrew her appointment.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter that dates back to more than a year ago. I would invite the Hon. Member to resort not to The Canadian Encyclopedia but rather to the dictionary and look up "innuendo", and "omittendo". The Hon. Member, persisting in his quest for something momentous in all this, was assured at that time by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) that there was nothing more or less notable in this other than the fact of an unfortunate administrative error.
The facts in the matter are these: Dr. Ursula Franklin, in April of 1985, was being considered for appointment to the AECB. During the course of that consideration, it became apparent that Dr. Franklin held reservations about the provisions of the secrecy oath required for all board members. Specifically, she wanted to know to whom she could or could not impart AECB information. The administrative error referred to earlier happened at this point and a letter was sent informing Dr. Franklin of her appointment to the board, even

June 12, 1986
Adjournment Debate
though full consideration was still being given to the appropriateness of the appointment.
When the error was realized, the Minister's spokesman immediately telephoned Dr. Franklin, explained the mix-up and apologized for any embarrassment that might have been caused to her. Dr. Franklin said she understood completely and accepted the apology.
Those are the facts, Mr. Speaker, and as will be obvious to all Hon. Members, there is nothing more complicated in it than a matter which involved human error and human understanding of that error.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Lies.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier).


PUBLIC SERVICE-PENSIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION. (B) ENQUIRY IF PENSIONERS WERE REPRESENTED DURING NEGOTIATIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, at the request of a number of public service pensioners, on May 15, 1986 I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret)...


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Those are lies.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose it would be parliamentary for me to call-so I will not need to now. I would suggest that the remark made by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kings way (Mr. Waddell) is not appropriate and perhaps should be withdrawn.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I will not withdraw it. They are lying. They are not telling the truth. The appointment was-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. Just to make things clear for both Hon. Members, at this time I do not think the House is actually sitting. Technically we are on an Adjournment Debate-


George Albert Proud: No, no.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: -which causes a great deal of difficulty for the Chair at this time.


George Albert Proud: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I would, therefore, suggest that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary for the Minister of Communications (Mr. Edwards) bring up this matter at an appropriate time tomorrow. It will probably solve that dilemma.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, just on that same point before I start, I do not take exception to what you have said, but the House is sitting at this time. We are on Adjournment Motion.
I hope you will not take the time off the seven minutes I am entitled to in addressing the subject matter at hand.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the question I raised in the House on May 15, 1986, when I asked the President of the Treasury Board whether an agreement had been concluded with respect to public service pensions.
The Minister answered that a document had been submitted to Cabinet and that discussions with the unions on the final document would be completed in a matter of days.
I will be in a position, he said-this was only a month ago, on May 15-to report to the House before the end of the session.
In a supplementary, I also asked the Minister whether pensioners had been involved in the negotiations and if so, at what level.
The Minister confirmed that pensioners were represented on the advisory committee and that a representative of the association knew about the negotiations and the progress made to date.
That was nearly a month ago, and the Minister has yet to announce in the House his Government's position on this vital issue.
As we know, the House of Commons will adjourn in a matter of days, and everyone, especially our pensioners, is anxious to know the Government's position on this particular issue.
Mr. Agius, a retired pensioner who works for the Association of Federal Retirees, got in touch with my office recently and asked me to intervene again so that the decision might be announced before the House adjourns later this month. Since Mr. Agius belongs to an association which was present and is anxious to know what is going on, I am seriously asking the Government what its answer will be, and may we seriously expect its response to this problem which is of concern to all of us. Federal employees and retired public servants want to know what changes will be made to their pension plan. Will full indexation be granted or maintained? Will the Government keep its promise? Will the Government re-adjust the pension base to offset the harmful impact of Bill C-133, the 6 and 5 per cent imposed some time ago?
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I was strongly opposed to the deindexation of pensions, and I still feel the same way today. But this Government has promised to restore full indexation. I expect a positive response from this Government. After waiting for over a year, my patience and the patience of pensioners have been severely tried. God knows we are waiting patiently, but we are also waiting for this Government to take position on this question. Can the Minister, through his Parliamentary Secretary, tell the House and pensioners this evening that the Government has made a decision and will announce the terms of the agreement, that we will know exactly where we stand with respect to this important matter?
June 12, 1986

Of course I remain ever optimistic, Mr. Speaker, I was born that way, but I am also among those who would like to know just where the Government stands on this issue.
As Hon. Members may recall, the Minister told me recently that he had managed to negotiate in a spirit of co-operation and to find responsible solutions in the pension case. In answer to a question I directed to him on March 10, 1985, more than a year ago, he said: As soon as Mr. Samson, the former president of the Alliance, or the representatives are prepared to sit down with me again, they can call me. This is rather strange. First he tells us: I am negotiating, I have been successful, I am about to announce something. Then he turns around and says: Well, I am waiting for them to call me and tell me what is going on.
Quite obviously, Mr. Speaker, the Government has had plenty of time to study the matter. For over a year now I have been regularly asking questions on this subject. Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell us tonight in this House what the Government's plan is concerning the pensions of retired civil servants?


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that my hon. friend is still optimistic about this. So is the Government and so am I.
I am pleased to be able to speak on the Government's progress on the issue of Public Service pension reform. The Government is well aware that to some observers the process appears to be slow. However, because of the complexity of the issues and because we recognize that pensions is an area of such importance and financial consequence, we have chosen a cautious and thorough approach.
The first step toward placing Public Service pension plans on a sound financial basis for all time was to conduct an actuarial examination of the superannuation accounts. Second, a wide variety of options was explored to give effect to the principles upon which the reforms were to be based. The objective of this exercise was, of course, to have a clear picture of the nature of the problems so that they could be addressed in their entirety. Since the solutions to the controversy surrounding Public Service pensions must be acceptable to pensioners, plan members, other employees who sponsor pension plans and Canadian taxpayers, the concerns of all these groups have to be examined in light of the various options for reform.
As the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) has previously reported to this House, independent actuarial advice
Adjournment Debate
has been received by the Government and the Public Service unions on behalf of Public Service Superannuation Act plan members. These reports have been referred to the Advisory Committee on the Public Service Superannuation Act and have been reviewed by members.
Preliminary discussions have been held with management of the Armed Forces and of the RCMP on how the reforms will affect their pension arrangements. In other words, the necessary groundwork has been done and the formal consultative process with the President of the Treasury Board's advisory committee is well under way. During this process, the details of the reform of Public Service pension arrangements, including indexation, are being worked out. Plan members may expect to hear a statement from the President of the Treasury Board in the near future.
With respect to the subject of Public Service pensioners, the President of the Treasury Board has often assured the House that in determining how the reforms apply to them, fairness and equity will be his guiding principles. He has repeatedly stated that the Government has not lost sight of the commitments made to pensioners in the past. I think it is fair to say that the President of the Treasury Board has gone further than any of his predecessors in that portfolio in recognizing the role which pensioners have to play in the development of Public Service pension policy.
From the beginning he assured pensioners of a continuing role by making it clear that they would be members of the Pension Management Board which will, in the future, manage the Public Service superannuation plan. The President has met with pensioner representatives and has been receptive to written representations from them. More important, he has appointed a pensioner representative to his Advisory Committee on the Public Service Superannuation Act, thus ensuring that in the consultative process the pensioner voice is strongly heard.
In conclusion, let me assure pensioners and indeed all Public Service pension plan members that an announcement on the details of the pension reform proposals may be expected soon and will have resulted from a consultative process in which their interests have been represented.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10:26 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, June 13, 1986