1986-05-08

Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the thirty-fourth report of the striking committee.


NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE-FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the fifth report of the Standing Committee on National Health and Welfare entitled "AIDS in Canada". Pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), the Committee requests a government response to its recommendations.
This report is based on the evidence heard by the committee from expert witnesses, both in Government and the private sector who are working to combat the epidemic of AIDS in this country. The other members of the committee and I feel that implementing the recommendations contained in this report can do a great deal to improve public understanding of the disease. As well, these recommendations offer suggestions to increase the facilities required by the medical community and ensure the adequate and compassionate care required by those suffering from the disease.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings].


PETITIONS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to submit. The first one comes from the City of Toronto, Weston, Brampton, Bramalea, Mississaga and Etobicoke. A number of citizens have signed these petitions praying and calling upon the House of Commons to reinstate full funding for the Katimavik program for the benefit of our youth.

The following petition is from several communities in the Province of Quebec, including Sainte-Foy and Quebec City. Petitioners are asking for reinstatement of the Katimavik program and for reconsideration of the decison to terminate the program.
The next petition is also from the Province of Quebec, from Chicoutimi, where petitioners are also asking for reconsideration of the decision to terminate the Katimavik program.
Mr. Speaker, I also have a petition from Lac-Etchemin, in which petitioners humbly ask Parliament and the Government to reconsider the decision to terminate the Katimavik program.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I have another petition, also from Lac-Etchemin, in which petitioners ask for reconsideration of the decison to terminate the Katimavik program.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: It is my
privilege, Mr. Speaker, to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of Kamloops, British Columbia, who are concerned about the decision of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) to consider pension benefits as being earned income. They are calling upon the Government to ensure that all retired employees keep their pension benefits and receive their unemployment insurance benefits without deduction of pension income.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 459 and 481.


Mr. Corbett: How much money does the Government estimate it spends annually on tobacco-related cancer treatment?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Only an indirect estimate is available, based on 1982 figures.

May 8, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
In that year, approximately 34 per cent of smoking related deaths in Canada were due to cancer. Total hospitalization and physicians' services expenditures related to smoking that year are estimated by Health and Welfare officials to have been about $1.5 billion. Using the mortality figures as an estimator of the physician and hospital costs due to smoking related cancer, slightly over half a billion dollars was spent by governments on smoking related cancer treatment in 1982, with costs shared approximately equally between federal and provincial levels of government.
DEATHS ATTRIBUTED TO TOBACCO-RELATED DISEASES Question No. 481 (revised)-Ms. McDonald:
Since World War II, how many deaths in Canada were attributed to tobacco related diseases?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: The U.S. Surgeon General's reports on smoking and health are based on critical reviews of world-wide scientific literature by assembled experts. The Surgeon General estimates that 30 per cent of coronary heart deaths, 30 per cent of all cancer deaths and 80 to 90 per cent of deaths from chronic obstructive lung disease (emphysema) are caused by smoking. Applied to Canadian death statistics, these estimates indicate that about 1.3 million Canadians have died since 1946, from coronary heart disease (about 850,000 deaths), cancer (about 340,000 deaths) and chronic obstructive lung disease (about 100,000 deaths) caused by smoking. Smoking also causes many deaths due to birth-related disorders, peripheral artery disease, peptic ulcers, and fires. Similar risk estimates for these conditions are not readily available.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, May 7, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health
Contributions Act, 1977, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to point out to the House that this Bill appeared on the Notice Paper on February 12, 1986. It was debated on Friday, April 25; Monday, April 28; Friday, May 2; Monday, May 5; Tuesday, May 6; and Wednesday, May 7, at length. There has been a great deal of debate from Parties on all sides. In view of that, I now move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Fennell):
That the question be now put.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on debate.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I can understand the impatience of the Parliamentary Secretary since he has not spoken substantively to this Bill. We have yet to hear Ministers from that side speaking to this most important piece of legislation which calls for federal-provincial co-operation with regard to transfer payments for education and health. We have heard one bouffon over there, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), speak on this subject, but no other. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has not spoken, nor has the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall). Yet, the Government wants to gag debate by the Opposition. It wants to put the question now. We are not yet ready to have the question put. We want to debate the issue because it is an important issue for Canadians which deals with two subject matters, education and health.
Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, is indeed far-reaching and of such importance that we on this side of the House have tried during the debate to bring to the attention of the Canadian public some of the serious, far-ranging, and permanent impacts which will result from the arrangements which the Government is proposing to put forth.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, all provinces will be affected by these cutbacks. The federal Government will save $319 million in 198687; $2.1 billion in 1990-91 and from 1986-87 to 1990-91, it will save nearly $6 billion. Six billion dollars which the provinces will not get for justified spending on education and health care.
May 8, 1986

For the information of Canadians who are listening, I would like to break down these figures by province. In Newfoundland, in 1986-87: $7.3 million less; in 1987-88: $15.5 million less; in 1988-89: $24.8 million less; in 1989-90: $35 million; in 1990-91: $46 million; in 1991-92: $58.9 million, which by 1992 adds up to a total of $187 million, and this for a province with a high unemployment rate, where young people are discouraged because they cannot find jobs. And the Government wants to cut back spending on education, which accounts for about 27 or 28 per cent of total federal transfer payments to the provinces! The remaining percentage, 70 or 75 per cent, goes to health services. I will get back to this later.
Mr. Speaker, the story goes on. Prince Edward Island, in 1986-87: $1.6 million; in 1987-88: $3.4 million; in 1988-89: $5.4 million; in 1989-90: $7.6 million; in 1990-91: $10 million and finally, in 1991-92: $12.7 million, adding up to a total of $40.8 million. Our smallest province, the one that needs help most, is going to lose $40 million in revenue over the next six years.
Mr. Speaker, I could on and talk about Nova Scotia, which will be losing $282.6 million. New Brunswick: $228.8 million. Quebec: $2,083.6 billion. Ontario, my own province: $2,929.9 billion, nearly 3 billion dollars. Manitoba: $340.4 over six years. Saskatchewan: $332.5 million over six years. Alberta: $773.1 million and British Columbia: $934.3 million over six years, adding up to a total of $8,133.8 billion lost in two vital areas under their jurisdiction, namely education and health care, areas which the federal Government has for years been helping to finance by redistributing the financial burden, since everybody in Canada is helping to pay for those who have less, and it was this program of transfers to the provinces, in cash payments or tax points, that helped to restore a form of equity and justice to this country, by providing a system that gave Canadians access to education and health care on a universal, fair and equitable basis.
Mr. Speaker, in today's mail I found a press release from the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) concerning a three-pronged study he commissioned: first, access to post-secondary education in Canada; second, the 1983-84 national survey on postsecondary students to examine such issues as interprovincial mobility, the specific characteristics of full- and part-time students, interest in Canadian studies and access to education in one's chosen official language, and on and on; and third, the 1984 national survey on 1982 graduates which made it possible to collect statistics on graduate students' experiences during their first two years on the labour market, etc.
Mr. Speaker, a glance at this document indicates that the study of the Secretary of State was made public last May 2, and I urge Hon. Members to read it because it is rather thought-provoking. Here are some of the issues reviewed. I cannot list them all because my time is limited, but I think it does raise important questions: policies concerning foreign students; the expansion of TV educational programs; the impact of new communication technologies on better access to education; the opinions and positions of teachers' and students'
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
associations and Governments with respect to accessibility. Accessibility is the key word because we want Canadians to be better educated and prepared to assume their rightful role in the economy. Therefore, a collective willingness and a common movement are required to help finance post-secondary institutions.
So now we have this heartless Government which does not want to share any responsibility for education and which has been axing right and left in the appropriations earmarked for the provinces. As if this were not enough, the Government now wants to gag the Opposition and put a procedural end to the debate because it has grown tired of listening to speeches on issues like education and health care.
Well, Mr. Speaker, we intend to go on speaking at length to these issues because we have documents which we feel should be made public. We have lots of things to say, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you understand this is not a delaying tactic or a filibuster on our part. We are interested in this matter and it is only natural that we would want to debate it in the House. Indeed, this is where the work must be done.
Mr. Speaker-
I would like to talk about the effect of this legislation. The Government says we are preoccupied with the deficit; we are. In its papers the Government is saying it is trying to reduce the deficit. One way is by cutting federal-provincial agreements, thereby transferring the deficit to the provinces. We all know the Government acted unilaterally, without the consent of the provinces, and has failed to respect the tradition of federal-provincial agreements. We thought the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said during the campaign that he would have continuous ongoing consultations with the provinces in federal-provincial conferences. Yet on the most important issue, that dealing with transfer payments for education and health, he did not. The Government did not have the sense, the heart, or even the decency to go to the provinces and say, "You expected this money but we are sorry, we are going to have to cut the deficit and we have to ask you to bear the load". This is contrary to government claims and also contrary to government promises.
Nevertheless, during the last election the Conservatives promised to respect the EPF agreements on health care and increase R and D budgets. We know what has happened. They have no intention and have shown absolutely no initiative toward increasing R and D budgets. They sure as heck have not kept their promise on the transfer payments and EPF agreements.
All provinces are opposed to these cut-backs. Several groups, including the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, which is not known to be a very strong supporter of the Liberals, have opposed these cut-backs on the basis that they are unjust. The Conservatives opposed similar cuts in 1982 on the 6-and 5-

May 8, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
program. The Minister of Justice said the other day that that was Gauthier legislation. He has no memory. I voted against the 6-and 5-program because it affected the pensions of public servants in my riding. He calls that Gauthier legislation. He does not know what he is talking about. Of course, he does not usually read his documents anyway so I do not take too much exception to it. I see you are-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. I have given him a few extra seconds.


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity of speaking on Bill C-96. I listened with a great deal of interest to the comments by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), and it is absolutely ludicrous for a Member on that side of the House, representing the Party he represents, to talk about consultation with the provinces. The history of his Party is well-known. It was a history of confrontation rather than consultation. To suggest that this Government has not consulted with provincial Ministers of Health and Education is not only wrong, it is blatantly ridiculous. This Government has established a history of consultation with the provinces virtually unheard of over the past 23 years. It would be wrong for this House to be left with the distasteful opinions that that Hon. Member attempts to leave.
The fact of the matter is that this country has been burdened with a totally unacceptable deficit. We are in this situation now because of deficits we inherited from previous Governments represented by the kind of Member who just spoke. The deficit must be addressed. As distasteful as some of these programs are, we must assume our responsibility as legislators and move forward to improve the situation for the benefit of all Canadians. Instead of listening to destructive criticism, why can we not ask for and expect constructive criticism for a change? I ask: How do we go about improving the system? Unfortunately, time does not allow me or any other Member to cover the entire waterfront regarding the ramifications and implications of this Bill. I will have to restrict my remarks to the health care sector.
There is no question that over the next few years health care costs in this country are going to increase substantially and significantly. Today more than 6 per cent of the population over the age of 65 are in nursing homes or health care centres for the physically or mentally infirm. We expect that by the year 2000 that number will have doubled. All nursing homes have waiting lists and the system is overloaded. Hospital beds are filled with geriatric care patients to the detriment of people who are waiting to be admitted for surgery or other problems and ailments. Those beds should be made available to the system-


Ms. Mitchell:: How are you solving the problem by cutting back the money?


Robert Alfred Corbett: Perhaps the Hon. Member would like an opportunity later on to get up and speak. In the meantime she might be a little bit less destructive and listen to some constructive criticism for a change.
The problem is that we are not utilizing available funding in the proper fashion. We have not been doing so for some number of years. We have to better utilize the available funds.
There is a philosophy promulgated by Members opposite that anything done by the private sector in the health delivery system is bad. It is morally wrong and people would suffer from such an intrusion by the private sector. I for one have no quarrel with the fact that the Government must be there to set standards, policies and procedures. It must ensure that they are strictly and acceptably adhered to. However, we have to put all these things in perspective.
There are several jurisdictions, particularly in the U.S., where the private sector does contribute very constructively to the health care system. I for one believe that nursing care for an aging population is one area where the private sector could very effectively operate. Nursing homes are predictable. The needs of residents are predictable. Costing in that segment of health care is predictable. Staffing is generally stable and constant. The private sector is well-suited to the nursing home field, and in certain jurisdictions nursing homes thrive and their resident care is number one. Government funding for any such facility has to be a major factor, of course. So it should be. Less than 10 per cent of the people now in nursing homes are paying their own way. Government pays by far the largest share.
In the free world it is the private sector which is recognized as being the most capable and suitable instrument to manage enterprise. When given the opportunity to work, free enterprise does. That is not to say that Government does not or should not have the responsibility for input to a system where substantial amounts of public funds are being used. Management should recognize that the responsibility of Government to the taxpayer must be adhered to, that the Government has the right to act on behalf of taxpayers. On the other hand, Government should recognize the capabilities and effectiveness of private management and its ability to manage. I have no doubt that a proper relationship between Government and business in the health care sector of this nation could save the taxpayers of this nation literally millions of dollars annually with absolutely no sacrifice in the standard of care for residents. My suggestion is to improve productivity by reducing labour costs. We can realistically address constructive facilities. We can reduce our debt burdens and administrative costs both in the private sector, the delivery system, and in the government bureaucracy.
The key to improving our system and utilizing our dollars more effectively in the health care delivery system is improved management. The result, in my opinion, would be of mutual

May 8, 1986
benefit to all, including the residents of the nursing care sector, the Government, and the taxpayer.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 am saddened to have to rise and make a last comment on a Bill that is being introduced by the Progressive Conservative Government of Canada to cut back on the educational funding of Canadians, to cut back on the amount of money going into health care for Canadians; and let there be no mistake about it, that is exactly what Bill C-96 is going to do.
It says we can no longer afford to train and educate our young people, and our people generally. It says we can no longer afford to give the kind of medical care that people have become accustomed to and require in our country.
When you hear Hon. Members opposite saying the Government has a better idea and it wants to privatize health care, you must realize that when you form a business you do it for one reason only, and that is to make a profit. That is what business is all about, to make money and to make a profit. Any country that is going to make a profit on the backs of the aged and those in need of health care has a sick society and a sick Government. When privatizing nursing homes and hospitals, bottom line is to make money. I challenge any of the members of the Conservative Party to stand up and say that is not the bottom line, to make profits and maximize profits. When your motivation is to maximize profits on the backs of people who are having health problems, or the elderly of our society requiring care, that is something I do not find in a decent civilized society.
The Hon. Member across the way is yelling at me that we should nationalize the hospitals. Hospitals are public institutions that should not be in the business to make money. I stand by this position that if any Member thinks the purpose of our hospitals is to make money for entrepreneurs he or she has his or her priorities in the wrong place.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that I have given him a few extra minutes. I would like to hear the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis). I am having a very difficult time trying to hear his speech.


Nelson Andrew Riis: I appreciate the intervention. I believe it was the Hon. Member who was criticizing some of the other Members for attempting to interrupt him. He was saying they should have the good sense to hear some wise and eloquent phrases. I won't use that statement, Mr. Speaker, but I do have some very strong concerns about what is going on in this House today.
One of the reasons I am particularly concerned is that I happen to represent a constituency in the Province of British Columbia. It is a province where the Government there is antiintellectual, anti-education, anti-training, anti-university, anticollege, anti-school. The clear evidence of that statement is the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
fact that over a few years ago there was the opinion in our country that the federal and provincial Governments would equally share in funding of our universities, colleges, and technical institutes-50/50 sharing.
But when you look at the Province of British Columbia today and ask who it is that provides 100 per cent of university and college funding, it is the federal Government of Canada. The Province of British Columbia does not put a single red cent into post-secondary education any longer. It has turned its back on post-secondary education. It has gone against the agreement into which it entered many years ago under which it would pay 50/50.
Is there a single Hon. Member from the Conservative, Liberal or New Democratic Parties who stand up and say that the Province of British Columbia, does not put a single red cent of its own money into post-secondary education, is doing the right and the honourable thing? No. We have a province on the West Coast that is anti-education, where we have seen devastating cuts to our educational system from preschool right up into post-graduate studies at the universities. In the last few days the announcement has gone out to every college in the Province of British Columbia saying that, after years and years of cuts and cuts and cuts, "this year you have got to cut some more".
Caribou College in the community of Kamloops has just received a notice that it must cut a half a million dollars out of a budget where there is bone sticking through now. There is no fat or meat left, and now it is going to have to hack off part of the bone as well. That is why some of us, from British Columbia particularly, are concerned about what Bill C-96 is doing because it is saying it is going to cut back the federal contribution. The Province of British Columbia is not paying anything and now the federal Government is going to cut back what it would have been expected to pay for post-secondary education.
This year the Province of British Columbia will receive from the federal Government $36 million less than it would under the normal formula. Next year that goes up to $75 million less. In the next five years, this year and for other years, the Province of British Columbia is going to lose $642 million in transfer payments to education and to health care. Across the country generally $5,608 billion will not be spent by the federal Government on health care and post-secondary education.
A Member from central British Columbia has particular concerns because, when you look at the OECD countries, all the western industrialized countries are putting more and more effort into post-secondary education, scientific training, and on the job training. There is one country that is not participating in that same investment enthusiasm in post-secondary education, and that is Canada. Canadians are getting the short end of the stick compared to all of the other OECD countries. Take a look at the provinces and territories across Canada and you will notice there is one province that is putting less than any other into post-secondary education, whose percentage of

May 8, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
the provincial budget is decreasing when it comes to postsecondary education and health care, and that is the West Coast Province of British Columbia. People in British Columbia are getting the short end of the stick because they are Canadians, and they are getting the short end of the stick in Canada because they are British Columbians.
When you consider the people who do not live in the lower mainland of British Columbia, they are getting even a shorter stick. For a young or an older person today to go and study at a university, a vocational institute or a technical institute, you have to pay $6,000 to $7,000 a year.
Considering the high levels of unemployment and the difficult times that so many British Columbia families are facing these days, there are literally hundreds and thousands of families now that can no longer afford to send members to study at universities, institutes, technical and vocational schools in the Province of British Columbia.
If you are from the central part of British Columbia you are getting the short end of the stick in B.C. If you are from B.C. you are getting the short end of the stick in Canada. If you are in Canada you are getting the short end of the stick compared with all the OECD countries.
What does that tell us about this country? What does it tell us about what we can expect in the future when West Germany, Japan, and even some of the major parts of the United States are investing heavily in what they see as their most important natural resource? Some parts of our Government think our most important national resources are codfish, coal, copper, or wheat. The most important natural resource, as we all know, is the people of Canada.
The Japanese, the Swiss, and Scandinavian countries figured that out long ago. Canadians, as far as our Government is concerned today, have not figured that out. The antiintellectual and anti-education people in British Columbia do not even come close. The Government is short changing our youth in terms of the future and their ability to take their rightful place in the 21st century. In our information oriented society in which the economy is becoming increasingly competitive, we must have well-trained and well-educated people. We must spend more money on scientific research and development for future production, but the Government is not keeping up with our competitors in this area.
The Government's answer is to move this motion which effectively brings in closure on this Bill. It has closed off debate because it has heard enough criticism from members of the Opposition. I believe that this is probably the most important debate we have had or will have in the months to come in terms of the future of the country, but the Government's answer is to close off the debate because the heat has been turned up too high.
We in the Opposition say it is wrong for the Government to impose Bill C-96 that will take $5,608 billion from postsecondary education and health care. We do not want this legislation to proceed but the Government will no longer take the heat and will simply cut off debate and jam this legislation through. We say that this Bill is bad news for the future of Canada and Canadians.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on what is essentially a closure motion by the Government. This motion to close debate on second reading of such an important Bill is totally irresponsible. This Bill touches the very fabric of our nation at a time when provincial Governments are facing tremendous responsibilities in dealing with a recession, especially in the outlying areas of our country.
It disturbs me that the Government has the gall to propose a cut-back of $8 billion in post-secondary education and health contributions for the next four years. It signifies the extreme lack of awareness of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Cabinet generally about the realities in our country.
In Ontario alone there will be cut-backs in funding for postsecondary education and health care at a time when the Ontario Government is considering the possibility of doing away with OHIP premiums in favour of a fairer general tax levy by which premiums would be based on the ability to pay rather than a flat rate.
It is hard to believe that the Government would impose such a Draconian measure on the provinces when much of our country is facing serious economic recession. When the Minister looks at the national gross figures for the years 1983 through 1985, he believes that the economy of the entire country is growing at the same rate as that in the "Golden Horseshoe" around Toronto. I suggest that the Minister should visit the Maritimes to see the impact of the Government's cutbacks on services and transfer payments, combined with new fees for ferry services.
Recently the people of Prince Edward Island spoke eloquently about the impact of the Government's $8 billion cutbacks in transfer payments to the provinces. The Minister should go to northern Ontario to see the impact of the Government's policies on those resource areas of our country, including the forestry sector and the mining sector.
The impact of the Government's energy policy on Sault Ste. Marie, for example, is that we face lay-offs of some 800 people in the tube mill alone. We are just completing a new $375 million tube mill but the Government's policy on energy is not only making the feasibility of that plant very questionable, the existing plant is being shut down.
Let us consider the over-all situation in the country. I just returned from the agricultural special task force hearings in western Canada where we were discussing the impact of the U.S. Farm Bill. That U.S. Farm Bill will have a greater impact on Canadian agriculture than any other piece of legislation that the U.S. Congress has passed. However, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) went to Washington to meet with the President a few months ago, not once, in that

May 8, 1986
glossy agenda of items to be discussed with the President, was the U.S. Farm Bill mentioned. That legislation will be in effect for the next three years.
The western provinces are looking for financial help from the Government as a result of the recession brought on by its agricultural and energy policies. Yet the Government is cutting back $8 billion from assistance for post-secondary education and health care during the next four years.
Since you come from Alberta, Mr. Speaker, you know that Alberta had a very positive economic situation only a couple of years ago. That province is now facing a $2 billion deficit and must deal with an additional cut-back in health care and postsecondary education contributions. Surely the Government should recognize the reality in this country rather than rely on the view of the Minister of Finance whose gaze might go a little bit north of Bloor Street but not to northern Ontario, parts of Quebec, the Maritimes, and certainly not to western Canada.
The Government has imposed cuts in several areas. Last week we saw the Prime Minister put on one of the greatest shows in history when he seemed to be helping agriculture. He implied that the Government was raising the domestic price of wheat from $6 to $11 in order to assist the farmers. In fact, all he did was increase the price range. There is yet to be a decision on whether that will be done, how it will be done, and what its impact will be.
The Prime Minister appeared to be freezing freight rates, but that suggestion was exploded even before the press conference finished. The people in the press gallery knew that all the Government had done was recalculate the volume of wheat that is to be shipped this year from 31 million tonnes down to 28 million tonnes so that there was no need for an increase in the portion that farmers paid in freight rates. Everyone knows that it was a charade.
The Prime Minister also announced that he would remove the 2.5 per cent excise tax on farm fuels, a tax that should never have been imposed last September. This morning, at a committee hearing, I suggested to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) that this tax should be removed retroactively to last September because the crisis began last year. It was absolutely criminal for the Government to impose an excise tax on farm fuels at a time when agriculture was facing its greatest stress. Rather than eliminating that tax as of May 1, the Prime Minister should have apologized to the farmers of this country for imposing it last September, and made the deductibility and rebate provisions retroactive to that time. We are talking about at least $75 million in revenues which the agricultural industry can ill afford to pay.
Certainly, the Draconian measures which are being used by the Government in Bill C-96 are simply to bully this through the House. To add another $8 billion of costs on to the provincial Governments at this time, many of them in the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
outlying and resource-based areas, is not a fair, equitable, or even-handed way to operate.
The other aspect of this Bill is that its impact will be felt by all sectors of the economy. At a time when 600,000 or 700,000 young people are unemployed we should not be taking away $8 billion from the provinces.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has already stonewalled $400 million of the money she was supposed to spend on direct training and upgrading programs last year. The Government is moving even more in a heavy-handed way by removing this desperately needed $8 billion of funding from the provincial Governments over the next four years, using Bill C-96. I hope the Government will reconsider and take this Bill off the Order Paper. It certainly is not in the best interests of our country.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I have just returned to the House after spending quite a period of time with the Child Care Task Force which has been travelling across Canada. We have heard over and over again about the really sad situation young children face unless there is some very immediate action to provide better care so they will be better prepared for the future. I returned today to find out that we are debating major cuts in post-secondary education and health services which will be devastating for this generation of our youth.
This Bill is just appalling. It is inhuman from the point of view of our human resources and what it is going to do to our young people. It is also very short-sighted from an economic point of view. It attacks young people who right now do not have access to post-secondary education which they need desperately. This Bill will make the situation even worse. It attacks women. It will be predominantly women who will lose jobs and health services. It is particularly young women who may now be on welfare, who are raising children, who will not have a chance to get into training opportunities in order to become independent and make a better life for themselves and their children. It attacks elderly people who, as one member of the Conservative Party just said, will be relying very heavily in years to come on our health services.
I find it hard even to speak because this approach is so disappointing. The Government can find billions of dollars to increase defence spending, yet it has to cut back on the very essential services for our population. One wonders what is happening to us in Canada. It is extremely disappointing. I just hope that people across the country will be aware of what this Bill means. As my colleague said, the total cuts will mean over $5,608 million will be taken out of health services and education by 1990. That is just in federal cuts. We must add to that the provincial cuts. British Columbia will lose $642 million. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that this will have a tremendous negative impact on young people and our elderly in British Columbia.
At the same time that we are cutting back on health care and post-secondary education, over the next five years the

May 8, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Conservative Government of Canada will increase defence expenditures by 41 per cent. How in good conscience can we have those kinds of priorities? How short-sighted it is from an economic as well as from a social point of view.
I would like to speak about the situation in British Columbia as it pertains to young people. Twenty-one per cent of our young people in British Columbia are unemployed. These are the people who will be denied even more access to college, university or other training programs. There are over 63,000 young people between the ages of 15 years and 24 years who will not have any access to jobs. To get jobs, of course, most of them need further training. Now they will not have access to the training.
The federal Government certainly should be increasing opportunities for young people. Not only is this needed in what we hope would be an educated and modern society, but it is essential to our future economic and social health. In the long run, investment in the younger generation will save the Government the cost of unemployment insurance and 50 per cent of the cost of welfare. Most of these young people are on welfare. The Government would get an income from taxes. An investment in young people for training and educational opportunities now would pay off in the long run.
I would like to point to the leadership being shown by Bob Skelly, the Leader of the New Democratic Party in British Columbia. Last week a Private Members' Bill was introduced in Victoria, and I think a similar one should be introduced in this House, which would guarantee every young person in British Columbia a choice of full-time education, training, or steady employment. These 63,000 young people would have a choice about their future as a result of this Bill. If we do not do this, we will have a wasted generation. The costs of this program would be $150 million per year.
We are putting billions and billions of dollars into Expo and we cannot find $150 million a year to put into job training and educational opportunities for young people. To maintain these young people on welfare or unemployment insurance, to have them live on very low casual wage levels, will cost a great deal and will mean a whole dependent generation which would remain dependent on society. I implore the Government to think about what it is doing with this Bill. It is cutting back on the very essential investment in young people. It is not just an expenditure. It is a real investment. We are already paying, and we will pay much more if we do not open up opportunities for our youth.
Our generation had access to education and opportunities for jobs. We simply must look at this generation of young people in a much more positive way. We cannot afford to have them without jobs, without training, and without a future. The task force heard from young women who became pregnant as teenagers and are raising children. It happened to them largely because they had no hope. What is going to happen to their children? There is no future for them, and we are adding another burden with this Bill.
With respect to the health care situation, the Member of the Conservative Party who spoke last talked about reforming health care. I agree completely that we must reform health care. We could get much better value for our health care dollar. However, I agree with my colleague that we certainly should not go the American route of privatizing our health care and having health care for profit so that people do not have a base of essential health care services. What we should be doing is not only maintaining and increasing our investment in health, and it is an investment in people, we should also change our priorities. We should be looking at the fact that our health system is a physician dominated system and that far too much money is going into very expensive high technology, heart transplants, and so on.
We are completely forgetting the general population in communities which need a floor of preventive health care. What we should be doing is investing more in para-professional types of services. Our nurses should be doing much more, something which we have provided for in our health legislation but which has not been taken up. We should have more community clinics with more people from the communities involved in the supplying of services. We should have more home care for seniors in order to avoid expensive institutional care. We should be doing much more to help young families, particularly young families with pre-schoolers, to promote health. These are the areas into which we should be putting money. We should not be cutting back on the federal contribution; we should be increasing it. We should be encouraging and promoting a far different type of health service.
We also need to look at services in remote areas in a different way. Surely the federal Government has a special responsibility to the people in the Territories and in our northern areas, particularly people in native communities. We need midwifery in some of the northern communities, something which Inuit women have said they want. Yet we are not doing a thing about it. We are cutting back on expenses.
We need more university extension programs so that people in remote areas can have access to education. This is an area in which there are cut-backs in every province. I can tell Hon. Members that this is what we have been hearing repeatedly on the task force of which I am a member. Colleges are having to close down when they should be offering extension programs in rural areas. Surely a measure such as that would make great economic sense, as well as being absolutely essential if we are to have an educated population.
With regard to hospital care I have in front of me an article from the Vancouver Sun from July of last year. It states that British Columbia started restraint in health care four years ago with 2,000 lay-offs, and most of those laid off were women, and 1,200 bed closures. Since then health care has deteriorated. Some mothers in premature labour were sent to Calgary because there was no room in the special care nursery
May 8, 1986

at Children's Hospital. The Bill before us will worsen that situation.
I can tell Hon. Members that in British Columbia what is happening to the people, those with young families, as well as the elderly, is simply abhorrent. This Bill will simply add to their burden. It is completely short-sighted. It should be withdrawn. We should not have to deal with it any further. It makes me so angry I can hardly continue.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed to be speaking on Bill C-96 today and, in particular, on the motion moved by the Government which, in effect, will bring the guillotine down on further debate with respect to the cut-backs in EPF to the provinces. I say that I am disappointed because I do not think that Canadians and the provincial Governments have had ample opportunity to discuss and think through this Bill in order to make their positions known to the federal Government.
I just finished signing 632 congratulatory messages which I will be sending out to grade 12 graduates in my riding. These are students who are graduating from high school and who will be entering universities. These students will find it extremely difficult to do that because now the tax burden will be shifted from the federal Treasury to the provincial Treasury. In Prince Edward Island we have a very limited tax base. We live in a province which has high levels of sales tax and other forms of tax measures. Like Newfoundland we find ourselves with increasingly higher sales taxes which are to the point of being detrimental to spurring on the economies of our provinces.
On top of the university costs, which will have to be increased through higher tuition fees or other forms of revenue raising measures, most of these 632 students will find it difficult to find employment this summer in order to further their efforts to obtain a better education. I know that many of them will come to see me in my office. They will go to the manpower centres only to be told that there are not many jobs available. One in three might be successful in finding a job.
In P.E.I. we have gone through one of the most difficult years in many years in agriculture. Farmers who would normally be able to sell their products at a decent price- certainly potatoes-are dumping them this year in their fields. Of course I should mention that we were the recipients of a $6 million fund which was set up by Ottawa. It was certainly appreciated. It was set up as a diversification program. Unfortunately, it was too little too late. If the same amount of money had been given to the province last November or December when the federal and provincial Departments of Agriculture knew full well that there was an over supply of potatoes in the world, then that diversification program would probably have meant better prices for the remainder of the crops.
I would like now to consider the effects Bill C-96 will have on Prince Edward Island between this fiscal year and fiscal year 1992. We see that there will be a shortfall of some $40.8 million in revenue. This year $1.6 million less will go to the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Province of P.E.I. In 1987-88 the figures will rise to $3.4 million; in 1988-89 it will be $5.4 million; in 1989-90 it will be $7.6 million. It will be $10 million in 1990-91, and $12.7 million in 1991-92. Most of the Atlantic provinces cannot afford such reductions. They just do not have the tax bases to make up the difference.
Earlier today I was looking at an article which was published in the Telegraph-Journal. It is dated December 26, 1985, and quotes the New Brunswick Finance Minister John Baxter. He is quoted as saying that it will be difficult convincing New Brunswickers to accept further restraint measures in light of the federal Government's lack of restraint. I think herein lies the crux of the matter. It is very difficult to get people from Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland to agree to deficit-cutting in the areas of health care and education when they look at some of the measures the Government has taken. I refer to the bail-out of the Canadian Commerical Bank and the Northland Bank to the tune of $1 billion.
It is difficult for these people to understand why the federal Government should be asking the provinces to share more of the load. Prince Edward Islanders see other forms of taxation, particularly back-door taxation, in the form of increased user fees for ferry rates, inspection fees on potatoes which were imposed for the first time, and increases in national park fees. When they look at a Cabinet which is the largest the country has ever seen, with 40 cabinet Ministers, they ask themselves why this is happening. Measures which have been put in place for retired Armed Forces personnel and public servants, whereby they are not eligible to draw UI benefits because pension is now to be declared as income, remove an awful lot of revenue from the province. This diminishes the spending ability of people and has a terrible reflection right across the board. That can be coupled with the lack of job creation in the province.
The Government claims that private enterprise will be the engine of growth. That may well be so in certain areas of the country but in most of Atlantic Canada we find that private enterprise consists of companies with between one and five employees. We do not have large plants with 1,000 or 2,000 employees. Private enterprise cannot take up the slack in job creation.
I realize that my time is running out. I would have liked to have spoken longer on this Bill because it will have a tremendous detrimental effect on my province and on Atlantic Canada. I would hope that the Government would make provision for Atlantic Canada so that those provinces may have good quality health care and education just like the better-off provinces.
A new veterinary college is just about to be opened in Charlottetown and I wonder what effect this cut will have on that. The Maritime Council of Higher Education has already pared its budget down to the bare bones. In fact it has been

May 8, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
doing so over the last five years. When I was a member of the provincial Legislature of Prince Edward Island a number of years ago, that council was making cuts at that time. The provincial Government was also trying to curb expenditures. There is simply no room for any further cuts in the education system.
There is a growing aging population in Prince Edward Island which will require more and more facilities. Once again the federal Government is cutting back on health care to make its deficit position look better. Really all it is doing is transferring the tax burden to the taxpayers of the provinces. Whether one pays a tax to the federal Government or to a provincial Government does not really matter much. However, the head of the family, the head of this great confederation of ours, must be the federal Government, and the federal Government should take its responsibility seriously. It should ensure that all Canadians have equal opportunity no matter where in this land they happen to live.
The same kind of health care should be available whether one lives in Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, northern Alberta, northern New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland or Labrador. I do not think it is reasonable to expect to have open-heart surgery in small hospitals. That is not what I mean, but I do mean that the basic principles of health care should be maintained and should be available to all individuals no matter where they live.
Those are the few words I wished to say. I know my time is up. I am very upset that the Government would move a motion to cut off debate on this most important subject, a subject that will affect all Canadians no matter where they live.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to put some of my thoughts regarding Bill C-96 on the record. We have spent the last week or two debating the various effects of systematically reducing the growth of funds to the provinces required for the two most important services in Canada, health care and post-secondary education. These two services are the impetus for growth in the economy. Only if we have a healthy and well-educated population will we be able to survive under conditions of depression. Only then may we take advantage of every opportunity to grow. When the Government decides to reduce the amount of money that it is willing to spend on health care and education, it is reducing the ability of the economy to grow.
The Government keeps telling us that it is increasing the funding, and to some extent that is true. It is true unless one looks at it very closely. How long can a system survive if, every time the costs increase by $1, the amount of money received to pay for them only increases by 50 cents? Eventually the services will have to be cut back. It becomes a sleazy way of reducing the quality of education and health care because, when cuts are made, the quality of the services is the first to be affected.
I would like to spend most of the time I have which is only a few minutes, on the effects of these cuts on health care. The health care programs of many provinces are already approaching a crisis because of lack of money. We need to look at the size of the reduction that is contemplated by this Bill. In very simple terms, the Government intends to cut $2 billion per year by 1990-91. Over that period, $5.6 billion will be withdrawn from the funding levels for health care. As was pointed out by a representative from Newfoundland, this means either poorer service, higher fees, higher provincial taxes, increased premiums, or all of the above.
In this Bill the Government is following its philosophy as shown by many of its other actions. The Government's approach is either to eliminate a service, redefine the responsibility of the federal Government so that the service will not cost so much, or pass the costs on to someone else, whether it be the provincial Government, the student, or the person receiving health care.
Organizations like the Canadian Medical Association have made strong protests against the reduction of funding for health care. In fact that association suggests that the basic problem underlying the fight that is going on right now in Ontario between doctors and the Government regarding overbilling can be traced to the fact that the Government does not have enough money to provide the kind of health services that are required.
The costs of health care have risen over the last few years and continue to rise. The greatest increases have been connected to hospitals. Some 70 per cent of the total cost of medicare programs today can be directly attributed to increases in institutional care, including hospitalization. It is recognized and accepted by most people that the costs will increase at the rate of about 4 per cent or 5 per cent above inflation. These costs are inceasing for various specific reasons. For example, the cost of liability insurance has risen a great deal during the last few years. That cost will have to be picked up by the health care field.
An Hon. Member who spoke earlier suggested that we might look at privatization. It is well known that privatization in the health care field increases the cost, particularly in the hospital field. Canada, which now has a public system, allocates about 8.4 per cent of the Gross National Product to all forms of health care. In the United States, where privatization flourishes and is the basis of many health care structures, the amount of money going to health care is 10 per cent of the GNP, for vastly inferior coverage. Privatization will not save us money in a global sense. It will cost us more money, a difference of several percentage points.
In the United States the Blue Cross Shield plan is offered for $1,840 per year. It has a $100 deductible, and only 80 per cent of physicians' and psychiatrists' fees is covered. There is no coverage for physical therapy, routine physicals, or baby care. There is no coverage for treatment of any illnesses that
May 8, 1986

might have been latent prior to coverage. Diseases such as cancer and heart disease, which are usually attributed to lifestyle, or stress on the job, cannot be covered by this insurance, and these diseases are among the most costly to treat.
Members who have travelled abroad know that if you do get sick abroad you come home singing the praises of Canada's health care. While the American health care might be excellent, fees for it are so high that 30 million Americans- and 30 million is the population of Canada-do not have any health insurance whatsoever, and that system spends 10 per cent of its Gross National Product on health care. For 30 million people it is cash on the barrel head if they want medical care, and if you visit the States and get sick, it is cash on the barrel head for you, too.
Surprisingly, the Nielsen task force takes an opposite view to that of the Government. It suggests that we should be very careful of any policy of profit on health administration. The task force reviewed the cuts already made between 1982 and 1986 which totalled $6 billion for health care and higher education. It identified the declining role of the federal Government, showing a 40 per cent share loss in the 1985-86 period. The Nielsen task force projects that expenditure requirements for the next few years will increase by 4 per cent and 5 per cent above inflation, and 1 per cent to 2 per cent above the growth of the GNP. We are not keeping up with inflation yet costs will increase by 4 per cent. A reduction of 2 per cent below the growth of the economy is to take place, putting us 6 per cent below the actual increases in costs, reducing the quality of services in health care and education.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I regret that I must advise that the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Bill now under consideration is to reduce the federal Government's post-secondary education contributions by 2 per cent as of April 1, 1986. The Conservative Government wants to withhold over $8 billion from the provinces over the next five years. As indicated in the Quebec Government Budget tabled last week, this cut-back will cost more than $2 billion to Quebec alone. As a result the province had no choice but to slap a surtax on corporate profits to offset this shortfall.

This Bill, as I said in my comments last week, represents what is really a total abdication of federal responsibilities in the area of post-secondary education. The Conservative Government is washing its hands of post-secondary education in Canada. To understand this situation, you have to go back to 1977 when the Government, after negotiations with the provinces, introduced the system of unconditional grants which still exists to this day. These unconditional grants have led to a crisis today in higher education about which this Government has nothing to say. The federal Government at that time committed itself to yearly increases in transfers to the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
provinces regardless of what the provinces did to support universities and colleges. These grants were unconditional. In other words, there was no requirement on the provinces that the money which the federal Government gave to them for education and health had to be actually spent on education and health. We know that many of the provinces spent this money in other areas, on roads or other provincial priorities. While federal transfers have increased over the course of the last seven to eight years, the money that actually gets to the colleges and universities has gone down. It has not kept pace with inflation.
As a matter of fact, funding for universities and colleges has gone up by only 2.5 per cent in real terms since 1977-78, yet the number of students attending universities and colleges has gone up 27 per cent in the case of universities and 36 per cent in the case of colleges. With funding stable and enrolment increasing dramatically, it is no wonder that the quality of teaching has gone down. There are more students per teacher, there is a shortage of equipment, and universities cannot hire the best faculty. Our country as a whole is suffering.
The previous Government appointed a commission headed by A1 Johnson to study this whole question. Mr. Johnson recommended that federal transfers for post-secondary education be increased at the same rate at which the provinces increase their operating grants to universities and colleges. He wanted to introduce an incentive to ensure that the provinces would increase their contributions as the federal Government increased its contributions. The provinces did not support this recommendation. The Conservative Government's answer is to cut spending. The Government's rationale may be that since the provinces have been using the money given to them for education for other purposes, if it cuts the transfer payments the provinces will be forced to spend the funds on education rather than on the other, less important things which they have been spending them on in the past. By simply cutting funding, the Conservative Government has nothing to say about postsecondary education in Canada.
This is made very evident in the report tabled by the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) last month in which he refers to Canada's educational goals. He refers to the fact that constitutional responsibility for education lies with the provincial Governments. He says that it is to the provincial Governments that one should turn first for a statement of goals and objectives related to the public support of post-secondary education. Who does one turn to for the federal goals? What does the federal Government have to say about the quality of post-secondary education? What do members of the Conservative Party have to say about the problem with post-secondary education? What solutions do they have?
The Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) is here. This is one of his responsibilities. What does he have to say about it? What does the Member for London East (Mr. Jepson) who is sitting here to my right, have to say

May 8, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
about it? The Conservative Party is saying that it will provide the money for whatever the provinces want to do, but the federal Government will have nothing to say about national goals. What about a federal co-ordinating role? What about strategic research done in the universities? Does the Minister of State for Science and Technology feel that the federal Government has something to say about areas of strategic research? What about strategic manpower? He talks about that in his speeches. What about speaking up on this particular Bill? Why cut the debate as the Government is trying to do?
Why are government Members not participating in this debate today? What is the matter with Conservative Members? Are they all a bunch of sheep? They are saying that they ask no questions when they give the money to the provinces. There is no national interest in higher education. They just hand the money over and forget about the problems of our universities.
What does the federal Government expect from our universities? Whom do we ask? Do we ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) or the Minister of State for Science and Technology? Does the Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) or the Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) have anything to say about this? What does the federal Government expect when it turns over money for postsecondary education? Does the federal Government have any goals? Why not simply give the provinces the tax points? Why should we act as a tax collector for the provinces? The federal Government is saying that it has no policies or ideas. Therefore, just give the provinces the tax points.


Mr. Benjamin:: It won't work. They'll chisel on it.


David Berger: They are being chiseled on it now and have nothing to say about it. Should the federal Government convene a meeting to discuss these subjects? Should it get the private sector involved?
In my speech last week I quoted from a recent submission made by the President of Northern Telecom. Northern Telecom happens to be our only multinational in the telecommunications industry. David Vice, the President of Northern Telecom, said that instead of a "dynamic, well-supported system of education, with recognizable centres of excellence" in this country we have "crumbling structures, inordinately high student-faculty ratios and poorly-equipped laboratories". He said:
The emergence in Canada of distinguished research and teaching centres- comparable to Harvard, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, or Stanford-seems next to impossible.
He called for a reordering of priorities. He called upon the Prime Minister to spend more money on education and less on other areas. He called upon the Government to convene a national conference on the crisis in higher education and to work to develop a national policy.
The Government has no national policy. It is washing its hands and is saying that it has nothing to say about the crisis in higher education. It does not recognize the call from people
like David Vice of Northern Telecom. What in heaven's name is the federal position? The answer is very clear from the silence from the Tory benches. There is no position. We cut our deficit, we cut loose, and the hell with what goes on in our universities. That is what the Conservative Party has to say. That is what it is telling students, young people, and university faculties and administrators.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal first with some remarks made earlier today by the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett).


Mr. Nickerson:: It was a great speech.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I hear it called "a great speech". I wish the predecessor of the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal, the Hon. Gordon Fairweather, were in the House. He would not hold still for this for one moment. He is presently the head of the Human Rights Commission in Canada, an excellent appointment. He was in the forefront of the Conservative Party for years with regard to federal funding for health services and post-secondary education. It is a bit ironic that the present Member would make a speech about the deficit and the private sector in health care.
I would like to quote another very famous Canadian who is also a Conservative, the Hon. Mr. Justice Emmett Hall. In a speech he made in Winnipeg on April 3 he said:
With privatization will come drastically increased costs particularly in the hospital field. Canada now allocates 8.4 per cent of the GNP to all forms of health care. In the United States where privatization flourishes, it is 10.9 per cent for vastly inferior coverage.
He gives an example. In the United States a recent Blue Cross-Blue Shield individual plan was offered for $1,840 per year. The coverage details included $100 deductible, 80 per cent of physician fees and 50 per cent of psychiatrist fees covered, no coverage for physical therapy, routine physical examinations, or baby care. Most absurd of all, there was no coverage for treatment of any illness which was present but latent prior to the effect of the insurance. What about cancer and heart disease? They are often present, latent for years. They are among the most costly to treat. That is your privatization, your private sector health care.
There are countless examples of Canadians who travelled and became seriously ill in another country, particularly the United States, who were faced with bills of tens of thousands of dollars. After their province had paid the fees and bills which it would have paid had they become sick at home, they are still faced with the additional cost of tens of thousands of dollars. The Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal advocates that kind of nonsense.
Let me appeal to the Conservatives about things which seem to satisfy them. They talk about the bottom line, the crassest kind of term. That seems to be what the Conservatives, with their so-called sound business principles and practices, are impressed by. Let me then appeal to them on the basis of free
May 8, 1986

enterprise and sound business practices. Perhaps that will convince them. Expenditures by the federal Government on health care and secondary education are not an expense, they are an investment which provides a good return for all levels of Government. It is an investment in our people from which the nation receives a tremendous return.
Keeping people healthy is not only civilized and humane, which may not appeal too strongly to the Conservatives, but, and this should impress my hon. friends opposite, it keeps them working and producing for the benefit of the nation as well as of themselves. There is less absenteeism and the workforce produces efficiently. They are healthy and remain so because of federal and provincial expenditures. If we keep them healthy and working, they pay taxes on their earnings. The more they work, the more income they have, the more taxes they pay to all levels of Government. Therefore, expenditures by the national treasury on health care and post-secondary education are self-liquidating. Governments at all levels recover more than they pay out because of an efficient, healthy, highly productive workforce whose health has been well protected. Those who are better educated and trained through our education system earn higher incomes and pay more taxes. That should satisfy my Conservative friends who rely on sound business principles.
Battles won do not necessarily stay won. It took decades to achieve a high standard of reasonable, equitable and equally distributed health care and secondary education. Yet it is gradually being lost, stifled, whittled away, and in the name of what? In the name of deficit reduction. Let me quote Mr. Justice Emmett Hall again from the same speech:
In the search for services heretofore regarded as essential, some of which may have to be reduced or abandoned, no one in his right mind would see health care as anywhere but at the top of any essential list ranking there with education, national defence, justice, transportation and the like.
So, let us compare what is proposed as between two essential services-health care and national defence.
As of now, the expenditures on health and higher education on the one hand and on defence on the other, are very similar. Health and education cash expenditures were $8.6 billion in 1984-85, while defence-was $8.9 billion.
For the coming five-year period, the federal expenditure for health and higher education will grow only 14 per cent while that on defence will expand by a whopping 41 per cent. Why not treat these two essentials alike for they are in a sense twins, two components of one national objective. National defence, as it is known today, is to protect against external invasion or harm to the citizens of Canada.
Health care is the internal protection for the same citizens of Canada.
One is as important and vital as the other. It is why Prime Minister Mulroney has rightly called health care a "sacred trust", so why not treat health and national defence alike. They can both be called "sacred trusts".
He closed by saying:
The defence of medicare requires the same priority as the defence of the nation-as I have said, the two are very alike. Let's treat them that way.
This is the message to carry to Ottawa.
I am only too proud to provide that message from Mr. Justice Emmett Hall for the benefit of my friends sitting opposite. The test of any decent and civilized society is how well and thoroughly it treats its old, sick, and young. Canada
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
was well on its way to being a world leader in passing that test. We are now well on the way to ranking 12th, 14th or 15th among industrialized nations in how well we treat our old, sick and young. There are nations less well off than we are which are doing it, and we should be ashamed of ourselves for even considering this kind of legislation. I hope my friends opposite will have a change of heart over the next few days.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it is very unwise for the Government to attempt to choke off this debate on a matter of great importance. We in the Opposition, although so few compared to the vast majority which the Government commands in this House-


David Berger: Silent majority.


Mr. Caccia:: -which is silent, regret very much that the Government would resort to such mean measures to muzzle Parliament. I will put to you graphically why we are so upset about this latest move. I would like to begin with your province, Mr. Speaker. The impact of this Bill on Alberta between now and 1992 will be such as to reduce the revenue of your provincial Government by $773.1 million. That money would go to Alberta for health and education if this Bill is not passed. The net effect on the Province of Newfoundland is a reduction of $187.7 million. For Prince Edward Island it is $40.8 million; Nova Scotia, $282.6 million; New Brunswick, $228.8 million; for Quebec, more than $2 billion. For Ontario the net effect will be a reduction in revenue of $2.9 billion; for Manitoba, a reduction of $340.4 million; Saskatchewan, $332.5 million. There is a total of reduced revenues for universities and health care between now and 1992 of some $8 billion.
I can understand why the Tory back-benchers are so silent. Surely they feel uneasy about this and they do not want to defend this Bill. Rather than having to be forced to speak on this measure which they should defend, they would rather choke the Bill. This is what is happening here this morning and that is why we are so upset. We are not the only ones to be upset.
In February of this year The Telegraph Journal had an article entitled "N. B. Medical Body "Tried" To Thwart Medicare Cuts". Le Droit in March stated that 300 students are denouncing the cuts. The Toronto Star had a title in February of this year: "Funding Cuts Seen As Crisis For Our Universities". The Telegraph Journal in January of this year had an editorial entitled, "A Danger To Our Health". The Toronto Star in January of this year produced an article entitled "Political Leadership Is Needed To Save Canada's Universities". The Telegraph Journal in January had an editorial entitled "The Quality Of Our Life". Le Devoir in December of 1985 had an article in which the Minister of Finance of Quebec was raising the urgency of the situation flowing from this proposal. Le Droit in December of last year discussed the anticipated university crisis as a result of this

May 8, 1986
measure. The report from Halifax in November, 1985, discussed the fact that Ontario leads the attack on funding cuts and accused the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of breaking a promise.
The media has picked up the message and the substance of Bill C-96. It is important to realize what its long-term impact will be. It means the indexation of the per capita amounts that will be transferred to each province in relation to the population in each of the provinces at a rate equal to the growth of the Gross National Product less two percentage points.
Where does this notion of a reduction of two percentage points come from? Is it out of thin air? Is there a rationale for it? Why should there be a reduction in the first place? Surely if there is a growth in GNP this growth ought to be reflected and transferred to the provinces. This is what, in essence, Confederation is all about.
Why does the so-called Progressive Conservative Government come up with this notion that the provinces should be deprived by a 2 per cent growth in the GNP? I do not understand that. I would like to hear a Tory back-bencher explain that to us.
There is a feeling here that the quality of our universities, according to the Government, is too high, and the quality of our health services is too high. Based on what students and practitioners in medicine tell me, I would rather see a transfer formula that would be the equivalent of the Gross National Product, plus 2 per cent, instead of minus 2 per cent, in order to prevent the crisis that is being anticipated and referred to in the articles and editorials from which I quoted.
It is a serious set-back for the provinces to know that in each of the coming years there will be a reduction of revenue which, for the totality of the country, will amount in this fiscal year, 1986-87, to a reduction in revenue of $317 million. In Alberta it will mean today, election today, $29 million less from Ottawa. Next year it will be $676 million less coming from Ottawa to the universities and health services across the country.
In 1988-89 it will be $1 billion less coming from Ottawa on education and health. In 1989-90 it will be $1.5 billion. You can see how the curve is gradually increasing. In 1990 to 1991 the reduction touches $2 billion less from Ottawa to the provinces, and in the case of Alberta, $191 million less.
In the 1991-92 fiscal year the amount will be reduced by $2.5 billion. As I mentioned to you earlier, the totality of the reduction in the federal contributions to all the provinces, under this particular program touched upon by Bill C-96, between now and 1992 will mean a loss of revenue to the provinces of $8,133 billion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Charles L. Caccia: May I call it one o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am afraid I must either recognize another speaker or put the question.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, since it is virtually one o'clock, may I call it one o'clock and complete my remarks after Question Period?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it so agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 12.58 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I want to bring to the attention of the House of Commons the announcement of the Ontario Hydro and Rio Algom Mines to change the Elliot Lake uranium contracts so that the delivery dates of uranium take place after 1993. This decision will result in the loss of 200 jobs at the end of this year. It is a very serious blow for Elliot Lake.
Ontario Hydro and Rio Algom must reconsider this decision in view of the loss of jobs. Is this cut-back in jobs really necessary? Could this plan be phased over a longer period of time to avoid the lay-offs? Is Ontario Hydro and Rio Algom ready to provide any early retirement program?
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) must provide funds needed for manpower adjustment assistance. The Government must abandon its policy of treating early retirement and severance pay programs as regular income for UI.C purposes.
I call on the Minister to change this policy, as have the United Steel Workers of America and many Members of the House.
May 8, 1986



FORESTRY


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, during National Forest Week, it is useful to compare the reforestation practices of British Columbia and Finland since they both harvest similar areas and on similar terrain. The Finns rely far less on the natural regeneration of forest lands and plant 250 per cent more seedlings than British Columbia and practise intensive silvaculture techniques over 30 times the area covered in British Columbia in spite of harvesting 80 per cent of the British Columbia area. Finland fertilizes 100,000 hectares while British Columbia fertilizes 6,000 hectares. Finland thins and rehabilitates 300,000 hectares while British Columbia thins 20,000. Finland drains low lying forest lands while British Columbia does none. Finland seeds 25,000 hectares; British Columbia seeds none. In 1984, Finland treated 800,000 hectares while British Columbia treated less than 200,000 hectares.
While these poor reforestation practices certainly jeopardize the industry's long term future, even in the short run they may be problematic if the United States forest industry considers these poor practices to be an indirect subsidy to our forest producers.



PROSTITUTION


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the recent British Columbia Supreme Court ruling upholding the federal prostitution law is a victory for Parliament, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and law-abiding citizens everywhere.
In his decision, Justice McKay correctly wrote that it is Parliament that must give life to the Charter and not the courts. It is here in this chamber where laws protecting society are made and it is here where Charter implications must be decided. The very foundation of our system of democracy rests on the principle that elected representatives must have the right to make and enforce legislation. We simply cannot exist in a system where laws, duly passed by Parliament, are ruled out in the courts.
Bill C-49 was passed by Parliament. It is effective; it is working; and it is supported by Canadians. That is the only assurance that I need.



EXTERNAL TRADE


Mr. Michel Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, our opposition colleagues are wont to stir up a storm in a teacup, or to make a mountain of a molehill.
For several weeks now they have been resorting to every imaginable tactic to spread fear and panic among the people, uttering nonsense to the effect that expanded trade with our southern neighbours will lead to fewer jobs for Canadian men and women.
Since when do increased production and export trade spell more unemployment? On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, all Canadian workers know full well that companies will hire more workers if production is on the rise, and of course that creates jobs.
Therefore I urge my opposition colleagues to be more discriminate in their statements and base their arguments on intellectually sounder premises.



ALLEGED DECLARATION OF MINISTER

Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, once again, the Hon. Member for Saint-Jean, the Minister of State (Small Businesses) (Mr. Bissonnette), demonstrated his incompetence this afternoon on the radio during the program La Filiere, a program aimed at Quebec listeners, when he misled Canadians and Quebecers and said, in referring to last night's incident, that the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) had no business being at the Committee on Regional Industrial Expansion. Mr. Speaker, on the same program I informed listeners, after that stupid statement, that it was the right and the duty of every Member to be present and to stand up for his rights in committee.
Finally, the Minister stated that people were very satisfied, and once again, I say he is blind, and I suggest he consult this morning's papers to see what the polls have to say.

May 8, 1986



FORESTRY


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, this week we celebrate National Forest Week. It is an occasion for all Canadians to realize the importance of this natural renewable resource. One out of 10 Canadian jobs is related to the forest industry. In British Columbia, forestry is our lifeblood. We cannot allow our lifeblood industry to fall prey to protectionist measures in the United States.
The current threat of a 35 per cent U.S. tariff on red cedar shakes and shingles would be devastating to the B.C. economy and particularly to the Mission-Port Moody area. U.S. President Ronald Reagan must surely understand that the imposition of this tariff would not only destroy an important Canadian export industry, it would derail our vital trade negotiations. Let us celebrate our forests and our future during National Forest Week by working towards freer trade in the forestry sector.




Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, this week is National Forest Week and my Party, the New Democrats, call upon the Government to start recognizing the importance of forestry to our economy and to our way of life. Forestry is the largest contributor to our country's trade balance. One out of every 10 jobs is dependent on a healthy viable woodland. The Government of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) still refuses, however, to make good on its 1984 promise to create a full federal Ministry of Forests. Such a ministry, when combined with a Forest Industries Act, would consolidate the present hodge-podge of programs buried inefficiently among a dozen Departments and set a course for real job opportunities. The Prime Minister and his Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) could have taken this initiative at the National Forest Congress last month. Instead we got a $4 million advertising campaign to inform the Canadian public about our forests. The Canadian public is past being informed about the depletion of our forest base and now want action. Four million dollars could plant and grow 9.5 million seedlings. Less than five cents out of every dollar taken in by Government is returned to grow and tend our forests. We need action, not propaganda.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, today marks the 41st anniversary of the end of the Second World War. On May 8, 1945, for those nations who fought the Berlin-Rome-Tokyo axis, world peace was finally within sight. Canadian troops in Europe began preparing for the return home to families and friends and to the lives they had left behind. Of the 570,000 troops who served overseas, 45,000 would never return. Their devotion to Canada and their commitment to freedom is not forgotten.
The contribution made by Canadians and Newfoundlanders to the allied in Europe will never be forgotten. It was a contribution characterized by loyalty and courage. As we reflect upon the devotion of our Canadian troops in the past to this country and its freedoms, we must ask ourselves what we are doing today not only to honour their memory but to fulfil our commitment to maintaining world peace.
Forty-one years ago Canadian men and women looked ahead to a world free from conflict and war. Today we must be realistic. It is not a perfect world and we can only do justice to the memory of those who fought and those who gave their lives for peace-


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



FORESTRY


Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, the best kept secret in Canada is the importance of our forest industry to our national economy. This week we are letting a lot of people in on the secret because this week is National Forest Week in Canada. I am proud that the city of Port Alberni in my riding was chosen as the forest capital of Canada for 1986 by the Canadian Forestry Association. Earlier this week, the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) and I participated in the opening ceremonies of Forest Week in Port Alberni. To mark the occasion today we are providing the Members of this House, the Senate and the Parliamentary Press Gallery with superior white spruce seeds. They are available this afternoon in the lobby of the House of Commons.

I know I speak for the citizens of Port Alberni, Canada's forest capital, when I express the hope that National Forest Week will create a tidal wave of support for our number one industry. Our forests are our future.
May 8, 1986



ROYAL CANADIAN MINT


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, last week I informed the House that the government video-tape which excluded Prince Edward Island from the world map and gave Newfoundland to the United States was inexcusable. My anger continues. The Royal Canadian Mint recently advertised the 1988 Calgary Olympic Winter Games coins. Subscribers were instructed to add appropriate amounts of provincial sales tax. The ad listed sales tax rates for only eight provinces. Prince Edward Island, Alberta, Yukon and the Northwest Territories were left out. I can understand omitting Alberta since it does not have sales tax; and perhaps our northern sisters share the same tax break. Where is P.E.I.? We have sales tax. Why are we not listed?
It is quite obvious that the Government really has wiped P.E.I. off the map. Not only do we see this in the ads, we see it in the Government's hopeless and inadequate policies and programs.
1 stand in my place today to offer the Conservative Government a crash course in Atlantic geography. Interested Members may contact my office, room 423 in the Confederation Building, 996-4714.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Pierre H. Cadieux (Yaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, this morning we heard that for the first time in more than 14 years, one of our major financial institutions is offering short-term mortgages at rates below 9 per cent. What a change from the exorbitant, 20-per-cent, plus rates that existed when the Liberals were in power!
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Bank of Canada announced just a few minutes ago that the bank rate dropped by 0.25 points and is now at 8.72 per cent.
For the consumer who has to renew a five-year $50,000 mortgage, the steady reduction in interest rates since we came to power has meant a monthly savings of nearly $125. That is economic leadership, and we are going to continue in the same vein by creating more jobs, by attracting new businesses and by promoting economic growth in every sector and every region in Canada.
Point of Order-Mr. Gray (Windsor West)



FORESTRY


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most important achievements of our Prime Minister's visit to Japan this week was the promotion of exports of Canadian forest products, particularly from British Columbia. For over a decade Canada has made representations to Japanese authorities and the Japanese construction industry to promote the acceptance of 2-by-4 timber frame housing construction in Japan.
Seizing the opportunity during his private meeting with Prime Minister Nakasone, our Prime Minister expressed a strong, personal interest in this issue. As a result Nakasone stated his intention to amend Japanese building codes in the near future to allow more timber frame housing in Japan. Such a change will be a significant boon to B.C.'s forest industry. It is one more example of how our Prime Minister's efforts are bringing real benefits to the economy of British Columbia.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



POINT OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: Before going to Question Period I think I must rule now on the point of order raised by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray). I am doing it now in order to make Question Period as long as possible. I listened very carefully to all the arguments which were made and I thank the Hon. Members who participated for the clarity and frankness with which they expressed their views.
I should say it this way. Questions to a Minister must involve ministerial responsibility in some way. It follows that questions which are purely personal ones on their face are out of order. Sometimes the borderline between what is ministerial and what is personal is not totally self-evident. Therefore, when I have heard what I believe to be borderline questions I have given the benefit of the doubt to members of the Opposition in order not to restrict unduly their right to ask questions. However, I must be fair to all Members. Therefore, I cannot allow questions which stray too far over the borderline. On review, the questions as they were put yesterday still seem to me to be not clearly expressive of the ministerial matters which they were attempting to raise. Therefore, I had to rule them out of order.
I will now deal with the second matter raised with regard to who may answer questions. Questions with regard to conflict

May 8, 1986
Oral Questions
of interest matters when directed to the Minister concerned have sometimes been answered by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), since the possible oversight of the conflict of interest code is a responsibility which he says has been delegated to him. Of course, the Chair will allow a question to be put to a certain Minister; but it cannot insist that that Minister rather than another should answer it.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF SENATOR LOUIS SOUVET-VICE-PRESIDENT OF REGIONAL COUNCIL OF FRANCHE-COMTE

Mr. Speaker:: Order! I wish to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our distinguished visitors gallery of Senator Louis Souvet, Vice-President of the Regional Council of Franche-Comte, France, and a delegation from Franche-Comte.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and relates to his ministerial responsibility. I believe Canadians know that the Minister must answer in respect of how he discharges that responsibility. The Minister cannot delegate to another Minister his reputation, his integrity or his responsibility. Therefore, why did the Minister approve millions of dollars in grants and incentives for a company when the son of the man who gave him a $2.6-million loan is an executive and shareholder of that very company?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Ouellet:: Sit down.


Erik Nielsen: No, I will not sit down because it is my responsibility to respond to questions with respect to conflict of interest. The right hon. gentleman, as a former Prime Minister of this country and one who has much experience in the House of Commons, should look to the conduct of some members of his own caucus as was displayed nationally on television last night. For the sake of this institution itself, he should speak with those people about the common standards of behaviour and decency expected of anyone, let alone-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: Ask him to withdraw!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think all Members know that comment about other Members is out of order.


André Ouellet: Ask him to withdraw. Withdraw-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. For the same reason, I cut off a statement made yesterday by one Hon. Member without asking him to withdraw his comments. All I am doing is pointing out to the Hon. Minister that those comments were out of order.


TIMING OF PRIME MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE OF FACTS SURROUNDING MATTERS INVOLVING MINISTER OF REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty weak defence.
In that case, I want to direct my question to the Deputy Prime Minister. Canadians have had enough of these blatant attempts to hide the truth. Obviously, the Prime Minister asked the Minister 10 days ago for all the facts sarrounding the case now before the House.
My question is as follows: For how long has the Prime Minister of Canada been aware of the facts surrounding the case of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, and does the Deputy Prime Minister, acting on behalf of the Prime Minister, intend to provide the House with the parameters of this enquiry?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am responding as Acting Prime Minister and one who is responsible for ensuring compliance with the Code of Conduct. I have told the Right Hon. Member, his caucus Members and those of the New Democratic Party over 10 days that the Minister has met the very strict and demanding requirements- ments-


André Ouellet: That's not true and you know it.


Erik Nielsen: -of the Code of Conduct.


André Ouellet: This is not true and you know this.


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. former Minister knows that what he just said is unparliamentary. He charges me by saying that it is not true and I know it. That is something, Sir, that must be withdrawn.


André Ouellet: Not at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I heard the Hon. Member say that it is not true and it is his privilege to say that as a heckle. That is all I heard.
May 8, 1986


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ANSWERS
John Napier Turner: However you interpret the rules, Sir, we abide by them, but this Minister owes us answers. The Prime Minister owes us answers and so does the Deputy Prime Minister. I ask him once more how long has the Prime Minister known of the facts, as they are revealed day by day, of a conflict of interest, and perhaps beyond, surrounding the affairs of this Minister? When will the Deputy Prime Minister allow the Minister to face the music, stand up in this House of Commons and explain to the country what happened? When is the Deputy Prime Minister going to allow that to happen?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, he has been doing that-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: What a farce.


An Hon. Member:: Cover-up.


Erik Nielsen: -and for two hours last night before the standing committee-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -answering questions.


Mr. Orlikow:: Not so.


An Hon. Member:: Whitewash.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. Could we try to do this today, please, without all the noise?


Erik Nielsen: And doing so very adequately, it has been reported to me, without commenting on the committee evidence. But I can tell the right hon. gentleman that one of the difficulties is the nature of the accusations coming from Members opposite in his Party-


John Napier Turner: Absolutely fundamental.


Erik Nielsen: -and from the New Democratic Party, some of which, such as the one made by the Hon. Member for Prince Albert yesterday, constituted an offence against the laws of the land. If the Member believes that Magna is guilty or should be the subject of a complaint for breaking the laws of Canada, then surely he has a responsibility-


David Orlikow: Answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is long.


John Napier Turner: This is the highest court right here.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Oral Questions


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Last night we learned that Magna International received unpublished grants for its operations in Markham, Ontario. We also learned that Peter Czapka, son of Tony Czapka runs two of those Magna plants. Would the Minister explain to the House how he can continue to perform his duties as Minister of the Crown when these obvious links between his private holdings and those of his public responsibilities have now been exposed?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has referred to certain transactions occurring, I believe he said, in Markham. He perhaps hasn't consulted with his leader. Certainly as Prime Minister the leader would have known those were Liberal transactions in the Memorandum of Understanding signed on August 27 and specifically referred in Annex One to that agreement.	__________________


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Napier Turner: Didn't have the guts to answer.


André Ouellet: No guts and no conscience.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


ABSENCE OF PRESS RELEASES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. In view of the fact he was the Minister who approved that, would he explain in the House, because Members on this side do not want to use the term cover-up, why no news releases were issued with regard to those grants? Does the Minister have something to hide from the Canadian people? Why does he not come clean and tell us the whole story, the complete story?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member should be enquiring of his leader or possibly Ed Lumley. Ed Lumley signed the Memorandum of Understanding on August 27, 1984. It contemplated $50 million worth of transactions with Magna International, including the three Markham deals. They are itemized. For example, there is deal No. 207, 834 for hinges, the Multimatic deal. In truth they should answer to the House why no press release was issued with respect to the original memorandum of understanding.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

May 8, 1986
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!


TIMING OF GRANTS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister. The difference is that neither Mr. Lumley nor his wife got an interest-free loan and that is what this is all about.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That's the difference. You can't tell the difference, Stevens.


John Edward Broadbent: Would the Minister agree that Mr. Czapka, who is a shareholder in Magna and a consultant to Magna, whose son, we have now learned, is a senior officer in two Magna corporations, had a personal interest in making a $2.6 million loan to the Minister's wife precisely at the time that the Minister was making up his mind about giving Magna Corporation a big grant?


Some Hon. Members:: Answer, answer.


David Orlikow: Let's get the truth.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member was, of course, at the committee last night. I will explain once again that the Memorandum of Understanding was signed on August 27, 1984. It itemized various transactions which they anticipated entering into with Magna Intenational. The transaction that was referred to in this morning's paper is one of those transactions which was subsequently implemented. It is as simple as that.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, knowing that, the Minister should either have made no decision favouring that company, or should have taken steps to make sure that his wife did not get a highly advantageous loan from the company. That is what the Minister should have done.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ADMINISTRATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that this goes to the very root of what conflict of interest is all about. Is it not the case that Mr. Czapka had a personal interest in making this very advantageous loan to the Minister's wife precisely at the time that the Minister was making his decision?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Order!


John Edward Broadbent: If he did have, is that not a conflict of interest that the Minister should have avoided?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Orlikow: Velcro lips himself.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: The velcro kid.


David Orlikow: Come on, give us the whitewash.


Mr. Penner:: You need a new lawyer, Sine.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Your nose is growing, Erik.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Minister wishes to answer.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in response to that highly personal question-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Come off it. You're the expert.


Erik Nielsen: -insofar as it affects the conflict of interest which the Hon. Member alleges, the Minister has complied completely with the very exacting requirements of the Code of Conduct which applies to public office holders.


André Ouellet: No, no.


Some Hon. Members:: Not so.


Erik Nielsen: I have been saying that for 10 days in this House and, if necessary, I will be saying it for the next 10, 20, or 30 days.


Nelson Andrew Riis: You have paint all over your suit, Erik.


MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister will not deal directly with the question, I will ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: How can I be more direct?


John Edward Broadbent: The Memorandum of Understanding which was entered into by a previous Government required the final approval of the present Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister is assuming moral responsibility in these matters. Would he not agree that a Minister, in considering a decision of this kind, ought not to make a decision that is clearly advantageous to a company which is directly involved in making a $2.6 million loan to his wife?


Erik Nielsen: We have been over that ground, Mr. Speaker. However, speaking of moral obligations, the Leader of the NDP should examine the morality, under the guise of immunity, of one of the members
May 8, 1986

of his caucus alleging a criminal offence against Magna yesterday without benefit of any evidence to back it up.


REQUEST FOR MORE COMPLETE ANSWERS
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Yesterday, my colleague, the Hon. Member for Davenport, put a question to the Government concerning the Opposition's right to put questions to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion about conflicts of interest. The Government House Leader gave the House the impression that we would be given an opportunity last night, before a committee where the Minister was to defend his Department's budget.
I therefore want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister how long this Government intends to refuse to give direct answers to questions about conflicts of interest. How long is it going to keep hiding the truth, as it did last night, before the Committee, whatever the Deputy Prime Minister may have claimed earlier?


Erik Nielsen: I have continuously answered questions with respect to conflict of interest, as it is my responsibility to do so. I can tell the Hon. Member one thing; never in my almost 30 years here have I leaped over chairs in an attempt to harass a witness appearing before one of our standing committees.


CONFORMITY TO GUIDELINES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the only answer the Deputy Prime Minister gave on the subject of conflicts of interest was a single sentence, namely that the Minister had conformed to the guidelines. He never explained-and that's what I would like to know-how he could claim the Minister conformed to the guidelines when the rules released by the Prime Minister make the Minister responsible for the acts of his wife and children. Explain how you can claim the Minister conformed to the guidelines. Don't just say that he conformed, tell us how he did, according to you.


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Member may choose not to believe what I have been telling the House; that is his option. However, I have spoken personally with the ADRG and the Minister. I have had occasion to study, word-by-word, the Code and compliance requirements. I am assured by the ADRG that there has been compliance. I am satisfied there has been compliance. I so reported to the Prime Minister, and I still maintain in the circumstances presented, distorted and twisted here, that there has been compliance with the Code of Conduct for public office holders.
Oral Questions


APPROVAL OF GRANTS TO MAGNA CORPORATION
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. It has been confirmed that the Minister personally approved some SI3.9 million in grants to the Magna Corporation from February 7 to June 20, 1985. It has also been confirmed that during this same period the Minister's wife was personally arranging with a close associate of Magna Corporation for a loan on very advantageous terms to her and the Minister of $2.6 million. Is there anything wrong with that transaction in the Minister's view with reference to the Code of Conduct on conflict of interest? If not, then is there not something wrong with the Code of Conduct of this Government which permits such a transaction to take place?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman's question had terminated at its first part, it would have been the Minister's responsibility to respond. The Hon. Member having gone on deeply into the question of conflict of interest, it is my responsibility to respond.
I have told him repeatedly that there has been full compliance with the Code of Conduct. If the hon. gentleman wishes the first part of his question to be answered without cluttering it up with allegations of conflict of interest, I am sure the Minister would be very happy to oblige.


MINISTER'S APPROVAL OF GRANTS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister personally approved some $13.9 million worth of grants to Magna Corporation between February and June of 1985. At the same time his wife was personally negotiating with a close associate of Magna Corporation for a $2.6 million loan for her and her husband on advantageous terms. Was there anything wrong with those transactions?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: -again what the hon. gentleman is doing by way of camouflage is addressing a question relating to conflict of interest. However, he has added another dimension, one more unfounded, unwarranted allegation.


Michael Morris Cassidy: You said the Minister would answer and you would not let him answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CONFORMITY TO SECTION 16 OF CODE OF CONDUCT-GOVERNMENT'S POSITION
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and concerns the administration of his department.

May 8, 1986
Oral Questions
In the light of recent revelations according to which Mr. Peter Czapka-son of the Anton Czapka who lent $2.6 million to one of the Minister's companies-received a grant from the Minister, could the Minister inform the House whether he abides by his statement that there was no breach of Section 16 of the Code of Conduct concerning conflicts of interest and whether he maintains there has not been even the semblance of a conflict of interest in this case?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member was not listening when I answered a very similar question from his Leader earlier.


John Napier Turner: You did not answer my question at all.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The transaction he is referring to is an integral part of the Memorandum of Understanding signed on August 27, 1984 by the previous Government under the name of Ed Lumley. The implementation of those transactions, which totalled some $9 million, was simply the processing our Department carried on with.


PROVISION OF GUIDELINES-REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF MINISTER
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Is it not time that he invoked Section 38 of the Code of Conduct which says that when it is breached by a public office holder he is to be punished and that punishment can include termination? When is the Deputy Prime Minister going to terminate the services of his colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, as prescribed in the Code?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I say again that the Minister is in full compliance with all of the provisions of the Code of Conduct. The Hon. Member may choose not to believe that. He has his own political reasons for doing so. However, he cannot get around the fact that there has been full compliance.


LOAN NEGOTIATED BY MINISTER'S WIFE
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Would he tell the House whether he believes he will derive any benefit from the loan negotiated by his wife?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order! That is-


An Hon. Member:: You know better than that.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Can I ask the Hon. Member to phrase that question in the context of ministerial responsibility?


Ian Deans: In the context of ministerial responsibility, does he think he will get any benefit from the loan his wife negotiated?


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Crosbie:: It's time for you to resign, Deans.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I explained at the very beginning of Question Period why I cannot allow that question. Does the Hon. Member have another question?


MINISTER'S POSITION
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he believes that his Minister will not derive any benefit from the loan negotiated with a company with which he does business and provides financial support?


John Carnell Crosbie: That is nonsense.


Erik Nielsen: That question is utterly ridiculous. The Hon. Member might as well ask me, if he had a swimming pool in his backyard, whether I would benefit from accepting his invitation to go with him for a dip.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Marchi:: But you can't swim, like your former boss.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An Hon. Member:: Where are you going, Ian?


John Edward Broadbent: He's going to think that one through.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An Hon. Member:: He is going home to "sink".


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. His officials have confirmed that press releases are issued whenever government grants are made. I am sure the Minister recognizes that he made the final decision with respect to the three grants totalling $4 million to Magna Corporation. Did he instruct his staff not to issue press releases with respect to those three specific grants to Magna?
May 8, 1986


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, once again the Hon. Member is clearly misinformed. The fact is, as far as our Department is concerned, press releases are issued with respect to certain transactions and not issued with respect to other transactions. For example, the Memorandum of Understanding that contemplated a $50-million series of transactions involving Magna did not have a press release under the former Government. The process for approving transactions-and I hope the Hon. Member understands this, it certainly has been mentioned to him before-is not solely at my discretion. We have an Economic Development Board that is made up of five Ministers and they pass on the applications.


MINISTER'S ROLE
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, maybe it is because we have suspicious minds on this side of the House, but it seems awfully strange that press releases are not issued when three grants are made to Magna. I would like to put the question to the Minister again. Did the Minister instruct his staff not to issue press releases with respect to the three grants to Magna totalling $4 million? If so, why did he so instruct his staff?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am still waiting for an explanation from some member of the Loyal Opposition why, when the Liberal Memorandum of Understanding was entered into there was no press release? Let me assure the Hon. Member that I have never given instructions to our department with respect to any transaction to issue a press release or not to issue a press release.


EXTERNAL AID
Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, my question is on a much different subject and is directed to the Minister for External Relations. I understand that a Canadian study concerning assistance to women and development in underdeveloped countries in relation to health clinics, education for women and training opportunities has been underway for some time. Would the Minister tell the House when the report will be available?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for her question. I may remind her that the subject is being examined and that a response is expected shortly on this matter.
Tuesday, I announced, in connection with Africa 2000, that I would be tabling a policy on the integration of women in the
Oral Questions
development process, and I have a very special and personal interest in this question.


THE ADMINISTRATION
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Was the Deputy Prime Minister aware at the time that he investigated the potential conflict of interest of the Minister responsible for regional industrial expansion that the son of the man who made the $2.6 million interest-free loan for one year to the wife of the Minister had also received grants or loans from the Minister's Department?


Erik Nielsen: The Hon. Member uses incorrect terminology when he uses the term "investigation". That is not my responsibility. My responsibility is to ensure that there has been compliance with the Code of Conduct governing public office holders. Those records are public in the office of the ADRG, and are there for him to examine if he should wish to take the trouble to do so. If he examines the records, and asks the ADRG, he will be told that there has been compliance by the Minister.


ACTING PRIME MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is again to the Deputy Prime Minister. Maybe I will use the right terminology and he will answer the question. Was he or was he not aware at the time that, in fact, the Minister's Department had made loans to the son of the man who had made a loan to the Minister's wife?


Erik Nielsen: I can answer that simply by saying that I read the newspapers, as does the hon. gentleman. My responsibility is, as I have described it, to see that the compliance that is required of the Minister has been had, and I am satisfied as to that. That is my responsibility.


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Will the Minister tell the House how and why he chose Burns Fry as the lead firm in the public offering of 23
13088

May 8, 1986
Oral Questions
million shares of the Canada Development Corporation announced last May?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as I explained to the Hon. Member last night in the CDC issue, there were 41 investment houses included in the distribution, including Wood Gundy, Dominion Securities, McLeod Young, Levesque, Richardson Green-shields, Pemberton, Geoffrion, some 30-odd companies. It is set out publicly in the tombstone ad that appeared in the papers at the time.


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, the Minister appointed Burns Fry as the lead in this particular share offering. Given the ongoing investigation, confirmed yesterday by the Ontario Securities Commission, into all aspects of the CDC transaction, the interlocking directorships between a certain representative of the Burns Fry organization and Magna, and the Minister's complicated business dealings, does he not believe that he should resign his position?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Hon. Member let me assure her that the appointment of not only Burns Fry, but the other 40 dealers that were involved in the distribution of the CDC stock was done by the CDIC board. It was Mr. Paul Marshall, the president of that company, that presided over the general distribution. We have one more piece of evidence that the Bay Street informant the Hon. Member is relying on is filling her with wrong information.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice and it concerns the appalling report by George Cooper on the CIA brainwashing experiments on Canadian citizens. Will the Minister explain why Cooper was not asked by him to contact either the victims of these experiments, the individual who was responsible for the book which disclosed the experiments, or the lawyer for the victims? Will the Minister, in these circumstances, not agree that the unbelievable conclusions of this whitewashing report are fatally flawed as a result?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I suppose for the first time the Government of Canada has taken this matter seriously, a matter which has been ongoing now for 20 or 30 years. Last year I arranged for an independent inquiry to be made of all government sources as to what the Government's involvement was in this particular matter that relates to the late 1950s and early 1960s. That inquiry has been concluded. We have made
the report public, which includes the conclusions and opinions of our independent investigator. Nothing is being held back. The report is certainly not a whitewash. It is a complete exposure of anything the Government or any agency of the Government had to do with this matter. It is the first time to my knowledge that this has ever been done. The hon. gentleman opposite should be welcoming that as a new departure in Canadian Government matters.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Certainly the aging victims of this are not welcoming that kind of whitewash.


REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR LITIGANTS IN U.S. COURTS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. In view of the Minister's public offer yesterday to assist the plaintiffs in their United States legal action against the CIA, will the Minister agree to intervene in the American courts on behalf of these Canadian citizens and further assist the plaintiffs financially with their legal costs?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, if the plaintiffs-I do not believe the Hon. Member represents the plaintiffs-


John Napier Turner: He represents them here in Parliament, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: If the plaintiffs have a submission in that respect, then it will be considered. We have helped and will continue to help the plaintiffs in their case against the CIA, for the simple reason that the CIA wrongfully involved themselves in financing research in Canada without either the consent or knowledge of the Government of Canada, and because they did it in a surreptitious and non-public manner, hiding behind a so-called charitable front. For that reason we are prepared and have assisted and will continue to assist the plaintiffs.
Mr. Cooper's report deals with the Government's position and whether the Government has any legal liability or any moral responsibility in connection with its own research grants.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


John Carnell Crosbie: He came to certain conclusions which we accept at the present time.


PETRO-CANADA PRICE CHARGED FOR GASOLINE
Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the
May 8, 1986

Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact that it has been repeatedly stated in the House that Petro-Canada is a follower, not a leader in the market-place, why is Petro-Canada, in several communities, reportedly leading the way now that the price trend seems to be going upward?


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there are two reasons for fluctuations in gasoline prices; one is the cost of crude and the other is the marketing that goes on in certain areas. Right now we are seeing price wars going on in the market areas and prices are going up and down. There is a chance that Petro-Canada's price may be higher in one area and lower in another, but it is the market wars that is causing these price fluctuations today.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday in the House he claimed that the present conflict of interest guidelines are stricter than the guidelines under the former Tory Government. Yet, under those guidelines, the families of cabinet Ministers had to put all of their business interests into a blind trust or sell them. How can he claim what he claimed in the House yesterday?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, he wants an opinion. I stand by what I said. We were not referring to the 1979 guidelines. The Code that was tabled in September, 1985, was stricter than the Code of the previous administration which he supported when he was sitting on this side of the House.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, in the Prime Minister's letter to all Members of Parliament he gives the Deputy Prime Minister credit for recommendations and says on page 4:
Obviously, from time to time, circumstances may arise that call for an impartial person to conduct an investigation as to fact.
Therefore, my supplementary question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. Is it not time to adopt his own recommendation and start that investigation so that we can get on in the House with the important business of this nation?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, if I had any difficulties in discharging my responsibility with respect to the Code of Conduct I would consider his advice to me. However, I have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that there was full, complete compliance with the Code of Conduct by the Minister.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


CANADA-U.S. TRADE NEGOTIATIONS-REQUEST THAT FARMERS BE REPRESENTED ON ADVISORY COUNCIL
Stanley J. Hovdebo: My question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The Minister for International Trade has shown a poor understanding of agriculture by lumping agriculture with the food and beverage processing industries on the Free Trade Advisory Council. The Minister of Agriculture will know that the interests of farmers are often diametrically opposed to those of the food processing industry. Does the Minister consider the interests of farmers of so little importance that they do not need a separate seat on the Free Trade Advisory Council?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, there is no question in my mind that the Minister of International Trade and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have full knowledge and understanding of the importance and, indeed, the complexity in relation to the bilateral trade issue between Canada and the United States. Indeed, if the Hon. Member wants to be a little more patient, I think he will see that there is a complete understanding, because in the very near future the names of the membership of that sectorial committee will be made public. There will be some interesting revelations and information at the time that list becomes public, which I would expect to be within the next 10 days or two weeks.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: What agriculture needs is a separate member.


REQUEST THAT THE MINISTER DEMAND REPRESENTATION FOR PRODUCERS
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister give us some assurance that he will demand full representation for agricultural producers on the Free Trade Advisory Council?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I just asked the Hon. Member to be a little more patient. I am perfectly satisfied that the representations that he has made, to this point at least, have been taken completely into consideration by the Minister for International Trade.


CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary. In light of recent reports that Canadian wheat millers are receiving profits of some 7.6 per cent of sales while American wheat millers only receive 1.9 per cent profit of sales, what action is

May 8, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Gray (Windsor West)
the Minister taking to protect Canadian consumers in light of the recently announced increase in wheat prices and in light of the fact that in the last five years profits have gone up while wheat prices have fallen?


Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to advise the Elouse on behalf of the Minister that a committee is currently studying this issue. It is chaired by our colleague, the Hon. Member for Crowfoot.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
M. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Could the Minister confirm to the House that his department has other applications for grants that were filed by Magna and its subsidiaries, mainly Multimatic Inc.?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I will take that as a representation. I will check as to whether there are any applications.
I would emphasize once again, though, that there may well be applications pending, coming out of the Memorandum of Understanding to which I referred, that was signed by Mr. Lumley. I emphasize that if one listens to the Opposition, they are saying in effect that it is okay as long as it is a Liberal Government that is dealing with this company, but a Conservative Government-


John Edward Broadbent: You don't understand the issue.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -should not be dealing with them. Why they continually malign companies such as Magna International and Hyundai, I just don't understand.


John Napier Turner: That is the problem.


John Edward Broadbent: You don't understand.


John Napier Turner: That is the real problem.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER REFRAIN FROM MAKING DECISIONS ON GRANTS
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that in a case like this, the Minister doesn't know whether his company has filed further applications for grants. Could the Minister give the House the
assurance, considering our information that there have been further applications for grants, that he will not be the one to decide whether or not these companies are eligible for the grants?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I thought I made that clear. I said that I heard the Hon. Member and would take his question as a representation and would check. However, the normal process in our Department is that these applications proceed without any reference to me or any other Minister until a recommendation is in hand. It then comes to our economic development board which is made up of five Ministers and dealt with either on a positive or negative basis.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is three o'clock.


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I will defer asking the business question until after a House Leaders' meeting which will take place later this afternoon. However, during the Question Period, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion appeared to be quoting from or citing a document under the jurisdiction of the Government. I would like to ask him to follow the usual practice and table that document.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I think what the Hon. Member was referring to were notes I had of certain transactions.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Minister held up a document-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: A Memorandum of Agreement.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -and it would appear that he referred to it as the "Memorandum of Understanding", according to my recollection. He pointed to a table in it. I think he should live up to the long-standing traditions of this House and table the document in question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member may not be satisfied with the clear answer given by the Minister, but when the Minister says they are notes, they are notes, and that is too bad for the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
May 8, 1986


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in response to the point of order, I have no objection, if they want to see my notes. There are my notes.


John Carnell Crosbie: Give Herb the notes.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I take it-


John Carnell Crosbie: Feed the rat-pack the notes and see what difference it makes. They wouldn't understand them anyway.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: They understand jumping over tables and grappling around.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Do I take it the Hon. Minister is tabling the document he just held up? Do I take it the Hon. Minister wishes to table the piece of paper he just held up?


An Hon. Member:: Table it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: For God's sake, come on.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: You have too damn many lawyers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. You are not being helpful. The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), please. Is the Hon. Minister indicating to the Chair that he intends to table what he was holding up 30 seconds ago?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to tabling the note I was holding up-


André Ouellet: That's not what you were holding in your hand.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -as you have said.


André Ouellet: That's not what he was holding. He was holding a different document.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps Hon. Members will come to order.


André Ouellet: I think that tells a lot about you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) will sit down, please. The Hon. Member will sit down, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Point of Order-Mr. Gray (Windsor West)


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) will come to order and stay in order. The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, we may want to check the transcript of Hansard, but my recollection is that during the Question Period, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) was talking about a Memorandum of Understanding and purporting to quote from that memorandum.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That's right.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -and I may be mistaken but he appeared to be holding up a document which consisted of more than one page.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maurice Brydon Foster: Right on.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Several pages.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Probably a note from his wife.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows the Chair has just heard the Hon. Minister say that he was using notes. I think the Hon. Member knows the practice of the Chair is to accept the word of all Hon. Members in these matters.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that is the end of that point of order.


An Hon. Member:: Why?


Mr. Speaker:: Because the Chair has heard the Minister and he has to accept the word of any Hon. Member. I have to accept his word.


Mr. Prud'homme:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, I am not going to hear it, sorry. Order, please. I have heard three or four representations on this point of order. I have indicated what my view is. That is the end of that.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, we have a right to be heard in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) will come to order and stay in order. That is the last warning. Order, please. The Hon. Member for Bourassa will come to order now.

May 8, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Prud'homme


Carlo Rossi: On the same point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Bourassa is going to leave the Chair no choice. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) on a separate point of order.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, we all watch television- [English]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the Hon. Member has another point of order, he is most welcome to raise it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I do not know how many times we are going to go through this. If the Hon. Member has another point of order-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. The Hon. Member for Bourassa will come to order now. The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) will come to order now.


Jacques Guilbault: Listen to him.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques will come to order. The Chair has heard the point of order at length. I think the Chair has given that point of order fair treatment.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You don't know what his point of order is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REQUEST THAT MR. SPEAKER REVIEW ELECTRONIC HANSARD
Marcel Prud'homme: I have a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) is claiming a point of order. What is his separate and distinct point of order?


Marcel Prud'homme: Well, Mr. Speaker, you may decide if it is separate after you hear the point.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: For long we had the practice of checking the "blues" because we did not have television. May I submit that Your Honour may like to watch the debate of this afternoon on television and see if the point raised earlier was a bona fide or frivolous point.


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Frivolous.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis knows that the Hon. Member for Windsor West raised a point of order which I heard three times. The Hon. Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) said in this House not very long ago that he was using notes. The Hon. Member also knows that the Chair always takes the word of an Hon. Member, and that is the end of that.


André Ouellet: Unfortunately, yes.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: Tell him to resign. Come on. Shame for Parliament. He is a disgrace to this House.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: That was not the same document.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members will come to order.


Mr.   de Jong@: Where is John Diefenbaker now that we need him?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal PostSecondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the motion of Mr. Lewis (p. 13066).
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned for the luncheon recess I was just about to begin my remarks on the motion before the House, which is that the question be now put on Bill C-96, a Bill to change the formula for the Established Programs Financing Act. That is the formula we have used in Canada for a good long time to provide equal accessibility to health care and post-secondary education. It was originally put into law as an attempt by the federal Government to take some responsibility for financing what clearly was and is a provincial responsibility in the areas of post-secondary education, the financing of the vocational colleges and universities, as well as the health care system.
What is at issue here today is the fact that the Government is not doing what it said it would do during the election campaign. I want to remind the House that in the Progressive Conservative Handbook which outlined the programs of the
May 8, 1986

various parties there was a whole host of issues. The Progressive Conservative candidates and the public were told, with regard to established programs financing of post-secondary education, that the Progressive Conservatives' position would be, and I quote:
We would return to the 1977 funding formula though we cannot compensate the provinces for their 6-and 5-funding losses. We will institute regular consultation with the provinces as set out in the original agreement to reach a consensus on national goals in post-secondary education.
Those are two promises in this regard, both of which have been ignored. It goes without saying that there were no consultations. This is not a matter which requires a great deal of discussion. The fact is that there were no consultations.
What is even more important is that the trust was broken. The Conservatives placed a great deal of emphasis on this trust during the election campaign. Members of the Party said that they should be trusted with respect to universal programs since they are sacred. They said: "Trust us on EPF. This is something which we will live by. We will keep the funding levels at the 1977 level". And what did they do?
Let us look at the 1977 level. This was a period of time under the Liberals. The levels had begun to fall away from the 50/50 financing proposal, but the federal Government was still carrying 48.7 per cent of the cost of financing post-secondary education and health care. It was almost 50 per cent but not quite. The next year the level rose to 49.6 per cent-again, it almost made the 50 per cent level. The following year the formula took us to 49.9 per cent, and thereafter we began to have trouble. By the time 1982-83 rolled around the federal Government was carrying only 42.6 per cent of EPF. As Hon. Members will recall, at that time we were entering into the 6-and 5-program cut-backs instituted by the Liberals. At the present time, 1985-86, the level is 43 per cent. Next year it will be 41 per cent. In the year 1987-88, as a result of the proposal which is before us, the federal Government's share will be 40 per cent. By the time we reach 1990-91, it is proposed that rather than paying 50 per cent of the cost the federal Government will pay only 36 per cent.
I realize that Members on the government benches have made speeches saying that there will not be cuts. However, the principle that EPF will be on a 50/50 basis has been totally undermined. The percentage that the federal Government will carry will be only 36 per cent instead of the 50 per cent which was promised and guaranteed in the last election campaign. What we see here is a Government which treats its promises lightly. It is a Government which plays with words and experiments. It performs the type of experiments I recall being talked about when I was a young boy in my home community.
In our community there was a fairly stingy preacher. As the story goes, he decided that his mule was eating a great deal of his income, since the preacher had to pay for the feed. He decided that the mule only ate out of habit and did not really need to eat all that feed. So he began to wean the mule off the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
feed. He finally got the mule down to the point where it had survived two or three days without having anything to eat. Then the mule died. That is sort of what the Conservatives are doing with EPF. They are weaning the provinces off postsecondary education funding. So far the programs have not died; but that will be the ultimate conclusion. Unfortunately, the preacher in my story reached the same type of conclusion we have been hearing from government Members. He said that there was nothing wrong with his experiment. He said that he had proved the point that mules could, indeed, live without any food, only the mule had died before the experiment could be proven a complete success. A woman in his church who had less faith in science said that all he had really proved was that some preachers can be very stupid. I think that is all the Government has proved by its approach to EPF.
The amounts of money with which the Government is playing are of such fundamental importance to the maintenance of the country that I am not sure Canada can survive without them as it has survived up until this point. What is more important than trying to maintain services on an equitable basis right across the country? This is one reason why we have a federal Government. Its job has been perceived by all Canadians to be that of providing transportation services where needed to the outports and to the small communities on the Prairies. It has been perceived that a function of the Government is keeping educational opportunities open for the poor children who live in our outports and those prairie communities which I have mentioned. It has been a long, hard struggle, but in the last 25 or 30 years we have achieved that type of understanding with respect to health care. The understanding is that no matter where one lives and no matter what economic circumstances one finds oneself in one has access to health care on the same basis as do people in Toronto or in Montreal. It does not matter whether one is in an isolated community or has very little money. If one is sick, breaks a leg or needs an operation, health care is available. The Government is putting that understanding in jeopardy.
Let me stress that it is not saving the taxpayers any money as a result of this measure. If it succeeds in this endeavour, it succeeds in reducing the accessibility to these services of these people about whom I have just spoken. If the provinces are to keep levels of care at their current levels, then the same taxpayers will have to put in the money simply as provincial taxes as opposed to federal taxes. Overall, in terms of the macro-economics of the country, it makes no difference. However, the federal Government is in a position to place funds across the country so that Newfoundlanders have similar access to service as do Ontarians and as do people in Saskatchewan and so on.
I have talked about percentages which will change. Some people may have difficulty in handling percentages. I think all of us can understand what it means to try to Finance a similar program and to move from 50/50 financing down to less than one-third financing, with close to two-thirds having to be borne by the local Governments and the provinces.

May 8, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
I would now like to give Hon. Members an idea of what the extra cost will mean in terms of some of the provinces. I wish to point out that for the Province of Saskatchewan, my province, the change to the formula, this new understanding, this breaking of the trust with Canadians which the Government established going into the election, will mean that over the next five years the residents of Saskatchewan will have to raise an additional $227 million to pay for EPF and to finance their universities and hospital services. In terms of the whole country, the extra charges being shifted to the provinces amount to $5.6 billion, which will take us to the end of the current decade. This is an extremely unfortunate situation in which we find ourselves, particularly in light of the expectations most people had and in light of the type of expenditure programs the Government has chosen to provide in other areas. For example, we know that defence expenditures have been about the same as EPF expenditures over the last few years. By the end of this decade defence funding will increase by 41 per cent while EPF will increase by only 14 per cent in real terms. It seems that the defence of the country is at stake here, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired. Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).


Mr. Murphy:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I move that the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) be now heard.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It really does not matter if the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides or the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) wishes to speak. The Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I too rise on a point of order. Whom do you recognize?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I move that the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides be recognized.


Mr. McKnight:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I find it very strange when we see before us the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) recognized by the Chair, after which a Member of the NDP rose to ask that another Member now be heard. The Chair recognized that Hon. Member and then another Liberal Member rose and changed his mind.


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


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not apologize to my friend, the Minister. You now have a motion before you and it should be disposed of.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) raises a point of order. I watched the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) and the Hon. Member for Eglinton- Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) rise at the same time. I will be glad to recognize either one of them. I see no reason for-


Marcel Prud'homme: Well, there is a motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would say to the
Hon. Member for Saint-Denis that people are watching. This is not a place for games.


Marcel Prud'homme: A point of order, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member will have the chance to make a point of order. I will recognize the Hon. Member. I am just saying to the Hon. Member that because the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) raised a point of order, I recognized the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides. After that, he wanted to hear from the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence, and I said that that was Fine. They both rose at the same time. I see no problem with recognizing either one of the Members. Will the Hon. Member please explain to me what it is that he wants to know?


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Table Officers will also explain to you what is going on. You recognized the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides, and the Hon. Member for Churchill said that the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides should not be recognized at this time but that you should recognize the Hon. Member for Eglington- Lawrence. You know the rules, Mr. Speaker. I do not need to explain them to the Chair.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I would suggest that if you check the "blues", you will find that when you recognized the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), and the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) moved that the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) be heard, before the motion was seconded by anyone in the Chamber, you, Sir, then recognized the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence. Unless Hon. Members have some ulterior motive for their actions, you, with your respect for the House, have-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the motion put by the Hon. Member for Churchill if he will get a seconder and present the motion in writing.
The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), seconded by the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young), moves:
That the Hon. Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) be now heard.
May 8, 1986

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour, please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed, please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the Members.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the Official Opposition not to participate in this vote because it involves two of our very distinguished Members.


Mr. Speaker:: On that basis I declare the motion carried.
Order, please. On a point of order on the vote, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prudhomme).


Marcel Prud'homme: I did not vote, as you may see, but I want to register the fact that I am present in the House of Commons.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to you, Sir, that I abstained from voting out of the lingering, but diminishing, respect for the institution of Parliament.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it clear to the House that I was present but abstained from voting, since the question was on deciding which of the two colleagues who belong to the same political party as I do was supposed to speak.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that I was also present and that I abstained from voting because two of our colleagues were involved.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to point out that I was present, but considering the competence of both Liberal colleagues, it was impossible for me to decide. If it had been a Liberal against a Conservative, that would have been easy.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I also abstained from voting, for reasons similar to those mentioned by my colleagues.


Mr. Langdon:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If I had known that the question in front of us was the quality of either of two Liberal speakers-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before I give the floor to the Hon. Member for Eglington-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille), let me say that I am in receipt of a notice of question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall).

May 8, 1986
Adjournment Motion


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege concerning the document that the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) read from during Question Period versus the paper that he proposed to table. I had an opportunity to view firsthand, subsequent to Question Period, the video of the House of Commons which shows very-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am in a technical difficulty. The Hon. Member will understand. I would appreciate it if he would give me the proper notice of the question, which has to be done in writing an hour in advance of raising it in the House.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly accept your ruling, but I wanted to bring it to your attention as soon as possible subsequent to the Question Period. If you deem it not to be appropriate at this time perhaps I could raise it tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that our practices are that questions of privilege arising out of Question Period are properly raised at three o'clock, or twelve o'clock, and if they are not raised then, the only other practice is for notice to be given in writing to the Chair.
Order, please. The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it was not possible to raise the question of privilege at three o'clock because it was necessary to view the official video tape of the House of Commons proceedings. My colleague will follow your instructions, but I just wanted to explain why this was not done directly at three o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will have to deal with the question of privilege according to the correct procedure, that it be sent to the Chair and the Chair will deal with it in the normal way.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Federal-Provincial Relations-Establishment of French educational television network in Ontario, (b) Inquiry when funding will be made available; the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-Unemployment Insurance-Calculation of pensions as income, (b) Possible Forget Commission recommendation; the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid)-Canada Post Corporation-Closure of St. Lawrence Seaway post office.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask the business question now, since we have had the House Leaders meeting to which I referred earlier today. Would the House give its agreement to that, because I am sure the announcement will not take too long?


Mr. Speaker:: For the sake of form, I will ask for the consent of the House to revert to the House business question.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition has asked the usual business question. The Hon. President of the Privy Council.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker


Marcel Prud'homme: Give us the menu.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In Saskatchewan we pronounce it "meenu". The discussion to which the Hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition referred has taken place. It is my intention to continue with Bill C-96, the matter we are discussing now on the floor of the House of Commons. Bill C-92 will follow, and the third Bill in the sequence that I have discussed with the House Leaders is the amendment to the Income Tax Act with respect to scientific and research tax legislation.
We are also in the process of discussing other items of legislation and the amount of debate that would be required to deal with those items. As we monitor the progress of the legislation I have mentioned, I will continue to keep in touch with opposition House Leaders so they can advise their Parties and I will also announce to the House any change in the business that may be appropriate.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS AND FEDERAL POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION AND HEALTH CONTRIBUTIONS ACT, 1977 MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal PostSecondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the motion of Mr. Lewis (p. 13066).
May 8, 1986
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the will of the House that I be allowed to speak at this time. I am pleased that the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party gave me permission to speak at this time. I hope they will listen and understand that it is of great importance to the entire academic community, including teachers, administrators, students and researchers-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I hope that Hon. Members will carry on their conversations in their respective lobbies and allow the distinguished Member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) to say a few words.


Roland de Corneille: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was saying that students, which number nearly a million Canadians, those in administrative positions and in the teaching faculties of unviversities and colleges, and researchers, all of whom total some 1.2 million Canadians in the field of post-secondary education, will be gravely affected by Bill C-96.
The Government has broken the promises it made to the Canadian people. The academic community, including students, teachers, professors and parents, asked what the Government would do in terms of the future of post-secondary education and whether it would maintain the agreement contained in the formula of 1977. The answer given by the Progressive Conservative Party was:
We are committed to sustaining the current federal financial commitment, according to the formula set out in the 1977 Agreement.
When asked if the Conservative Party supported the continuation of that agreement, the Conservatives said in different words:
Yes, we support fully the original 1977 funding formula and the legislation providing for that.
This legislation does not provide for that continuation, but for its destruction.
Unfortunately, the Party opposite has broken its promise to the electorate. It has broken its promise to the young people of this country in the future. Not only has the Government broken its promise in this legislation, it has also broken an agreement between the Canadian Government and the provinces. That was a solemn agreement on which the provinces counted to finance the health care and postsecondary institutions until March, 1987. The Government has broken that promise in mid-term and has cut off the increases which those provinces counted on to provide for medical care for Canadians and post-secondary education for our young people.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) originally stated that he would keep this promise. However, it is interesting to note that the Minister changed his mind after the banks collapsed in the West. He reversed his position and implemented this cut contained in Bill C-96. In other words, it appears to us, to the Canadian Association of University Teachers and to the academic community, that this Bill was introduced to help the
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Government pay nearly $1 billion as a result of its decision on the bank's collapse in 1986. For the sake of supporting those who were in need of replacing the funds they had invested- some of whom were multi-millionaires-the Government took money away from the young people and gave it to the banks in which those people had deposits.
While I am not opposed to the Government taking that action, it should not be done at the expense of the young people of this country.
The Government broke its promise to the Canadian people, then proceeded to break an agreement between the Government of Canada and the provinces of this country. This year it will cut back on the anticipated revenues that the provinces expected for medical care and post-secondary education pursuant to an agreement that was supposed to end on March 1, 1987. That is a tragic mistake and a black mark on the Government's relationship with the provinces.
Furthermore, the Government has decided to move a closure motion in order to push this Bill through. The Government is limiting debate even though it has an enormous majority in the House. The Opposition totals only 70 Members out of 228. With that kind of majority I find it surprising that the Conservatives still feel it necessary to use their power to crush and prevent the Opposition from debating this Bill.
The provinces are not happy with this Bill. Premier after premier has accused the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Government of reducing the growth of federal funds for health and education without consultation. That is a scandal. As if there were not enough scandals now, the Government must muzzle the Opposition and prevent it from representing the provinces. There are at least eight provincial Governments which have formally and informally expressed their distaste about what the Government is doing with respect to postsecondary education and medical care of the Canadian people through Bill C-96. The Government told the provinces it was going to cut their funding but did not discuss it with them. The Government just announced the cuts. It was done by fiat. We know now what happened to the promise of dialogue and consultation.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State of Canada (Mr. Scott) said on April 25, and I quote from Hansard at page 12668:
No province will be affected any more or any less than any other province through this Bill.
What an outrageous remark, Mr. Speaker, when we know that some provinces are less well off economically than other provinces! How could anyone dare to say on behalf of the Provinces of Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Manitoba or Saskatchewan that they will be affected in just the same way as all other provinces? Terence Donahoe, the Minister of Human Resources Development and Training of Nova Scotia, a Tory provincial Government, is quoted in The Globe and Mail on January 28 as saying, and I quote:

May 8, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
-if Ottawa goes ahead with the reduction in grants it simply will emasculate the post-secondary education system. It is going to be chaos and chaotic. Regardless of whose numbers you are going to use, the system is simply going to fall apart.
Mr. Donahoe is a Minister in the Government of the Province of Nova Scotia and he is talking about the educational system of Nova Scotia. He is worried about one of the finest systems of education in Canada. These are not idle words. We should listen to the professors, the people who are running Dalhousie University and the people involved, whether it be students or faculty. We should listen to the CBC about the state of affairs at Dalhousie and we will understand why the Minister from Nova Scotia is talking not through his hat, but from his heart and knowledge as a Minister of the Crown of that province as to what will be the results of this Bill.
For the sake of the people of that province, if for no one else, I urge the Government to reconsider this Bill and not to try to muzzle us.


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be very brief. As I understand, the main argument of members of the Government is that the $5 billion cut from the Established Programs Financing Act over the next five years is not a cut at all but in fact an increase. For the life of me, I cannot understand how on earth they can call a $5 billion reduction in transfer payments for medicare and post-secondary education from the federal Government to the provinces as an increase. It does not only escape logic, it does not jibe with the promises made by the Progressive Conservative Party to the Canadian people during the 1984 election campaign. What the Progressive Conservative Party said in its Campaign Handbook with respect to established programs financing was, and I quote:
We would return to the 1977 funding formula though we cannot compensate the provinces for their 6-and 5-funding losses. We will institute regular consultation with the provinces as set out in the original agreement to reach a consensus on national goals in post-secondary education.
As we know now, Mr. Speaker, the Government did not consult with the provinces and certainly did not follow through on the promises it made during the election campaign, not only with respect to this program but with respect to a whole host of other programs.
I can only Find one individual during this whole debate who has referred to the cuts as "cuts". The Hon. Member for the Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) quite forthrightly and honestly said, and I quote from Hansard of May 6, at page 12978:
It is always difficult to stand up in the House of Commons or anywhere else and defend cuts in health services,
So he is one member of the Government who recognizes that the Government is attacking the ability of the provinces to fulfil their commitments to medicare programs and postsecondary education. In the process, the Government will hurt an awful lot of Canadians who should have the right to equal access to medicare whether they live in Newfoundland, Labrador, British Columbia or anywhere else in the country. Rather than having one standard of health care services apply to all Canadians equally, Canadians will receive different
health care services depending in which part of the country they live in and on the ability of their particular province to deliver that health care service. Exactly the same thing will happen to the youth of this country, many of whom will be denied access to higher education simply because they cannot afford it. That is contrary to every principle which has been discussed in our country for many years. Access to quality education and health care is basic to our form of democracy.
I know my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cape Breton- East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), has other pressing demands on his time, as we all do, so I will end my remarks to allow him to speak. To conclude I will simply say that what the Government is doing is the height of hypocrisy for which it will pay in the next election.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young) who, as usual, has displayed a great deal of knowledge on the subject matter we are debating. What is more important, I agree wholeheartedly with the substance of his remarks. I must say that this is quite remarkable in view of some of the positions which have been taken by other members of his caucus.
Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, is very important. It is very important in the way in which the Government operates. It is important in the way in which the Government treats its various provinces and, in particular, the people who reside in those provinces.
I would like to ask the following question. Is this an open Government? The question has to be answered in the negative. In dealing with a piece of legislation as important as Bill C-96 one would have hoped that the Government would see fit not to invoke the provisions of closure but, perhaps, to allow a full and open debate on the effects this negative piece of legislation will have on the provinces. Unfortunately, that was not the choice of the Government. Its choice was to close debate by using the most Draconian measure Parliament has seen in many years, that is, closure.
I can see by your facial expression that you too, Mr. Speaker, are disappointed with the way in which members of the Government have conducted themselves with regard to the provisions of open government. Open government and stability are certainly not a part of this Government's actions in terms of Bill C-96.
The thrust of the Bill before us is to take away from the provinces monies earmarked for necessities. I refer to the necessities of health care and the necessities which our postsecondary institutions provide. The Government is attempting day by day to transfer the deficit of the nation to the provinces. It is not fair that the provinces are now being told that
May 8, 1986

they have to change their budget allocations for, perhaps, the two most important sectors of our economy.
When the provincial Premiers met in Halifax at the last First Ministers' Conference they said it very clearly and unequivocally. They said that they did not want cut-backs in transfer payments to take place. Many of those First Ministers had already planned and allocated monies for their various budgets in terms of health care and education. However, the Government, which had campaigned on this bid of consultation, has once again shown its true colours in that there has been no consultation. That has been said time and time again, not only by the Premiers of Ontario and Quebec but by Premiers of the same political stripe as this Government. I refer Hon. Members to the Premier of New Brunswick and to the First Minister of the Province of Newfoundland. If these measures go through, then these provinces will experience even more difficult times than those which confront them today.
I think I can share with you, Mr. Speaker, just what these cut-backs will mean to my region of Canada. In 1986-87, the reduction to the Province of Newfoundland will amount to $7.3 million. For the Province of Prince Edward Island the figure is $1.6 million. For New Brunswick it is $9 million, and for my Province of Nova Scotia it is $11.1 million. These are substantial reductions in two areas which every Government since the beginning of Confederation, both provincial and federal, has deemed to be the most important areas involving everyday Canadians. However, the Government, supported and abetted by those Members of Parliament who refuse to take their Government on, are saying to the Provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick that the quality of health care the citizens of those provinces have grown to live with will now be worse- substantially worse.
I know there are Members in the Chamber who will say that my comment is one of a partisan nature. However, individual after individual, whether it be the representative from the provincial medical society of New Brunswick, or others, have come before our caucus and shared with us how these cutbacks will affect not only the medical society but the health care of the people of New Brunswick. In the outlying regions of the Province of New Brunswick individuals are without health care. They are without the opportunity which Canadians in every other province deem to be their right. They have been left without those services. We are now saying to them that we will cut them back even more. The situation in the Provinces of New Brunswick and Newfoundland is similar in that these cuts will be very substantial.
In 1987-88, the reduction for the Province of Newfoundland will amount to $15.5 million. For the Province of Prince Edward Island it will be $3.4 million, and $1.2 million for New Brunswick. For my Province of Nova Scotia it will be $23.6 million.
One must underline the importance of transfer payments. They were introduced not at the whim and prayer of some politician on the hustings at the time, but after major studies
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
affecting all of Canada were debated in the House of Commons, in the provincial legislatures and by the public at large. These discussions were to the effect that there was a pressing need for services in education and health care to be equal across the country. They are no longer equal. In the Province of Nova Scotia any individual in post-secondary education today will tell us that he or she is being cut to the bone. To impose additional reductions on these people will make it virtually impossible for them. It will be asking them to row a boat without oars. The situation is becoming extremely difficult in the Atlantic provinces with our diverse and small population there. Nonetheless, it is a population which wants to be educated and wants to have the same opportunities as other regions of the country have. Whether or not we consider the urban centres of Toronto or Montreal, we want the same rights.
These cut-backs will hit the very fibre of the country, something which has been echoed by Premier Pawley of Manitoba. That is what he said at the First Ministers' Conference. He said that they cannot make any more cuts. I hope that, not because of political partisanship on the part of Members opposite or because they want to be politically blind to the realities of 1986, they will take it upon themselves either to visit post-secondary institutions or to view, as I have done firsthand, the various medical services which are not available to rural communities. I am certain that any reasonable man or woman after seeing firsthand what is actually out there will agree that Bill C-96 is discriminatory both in substance and in terms of the effects it will have on all regions of the country.
A former Prime Minister who made an analogy with regard to language and how important it was for Canada to adopt two official languages also said that if regional disparities are not stopped and reversed they are more likely than anything else to destroy the country.
Bill C-96 cuts back on funds going to the Province of Prince Edward Island. In view of the recent election results from that province, I am astounded that Conservative Members of Parliament have not realized that people there do not like the type of Government they are getting under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
I will conclude by saying this, not for partisanship but for the real benefit of all Canadians wherever they may live: we ought to vote down the provisions of Bill C-96 because it is a Bill that is discriminatory, unfair and un-Canadian.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it has taken two years longer than we expected to get to the world of George Orwell. It has taken until 1986, but we now have a Government which is trying to call black white and white black. We have a Government which is in fact severely, dangerously and at extreme human cost cutting back the amount of money the provinces expected to receive to pay for very basic human services. Yet this measure is being described by the Government, and particularly the Minister of Finance

May 8, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
(Mr. Wilson), as not being a cut but simply a reduction in the rate of growth. When a province has budgeted for certain increases, reduction in the rate of growth is in fact, in practice and in reality a cut to the amount expected and required to pay for the needs of the people of the province.
What I think is so particularly sad about the action taken by the Government with respect to the established programs financing is that it runs directly counter to what the Government said it intended to do when Conservative Members ran for election in 1984. According to the Conservative Campaign Handbook of 1984 in which, as usual, the Conservatives attacked the Liberals and New Democrats for their inadequacies, the Conservatives said very clearly that it was the PC position that they would return to the 1977 funding formula although they could not compensate the provinces for their funding losses under the 6-and 5-program. They also said that they would institute regular consultation with the provinces as set out in the original agreement to reach a consensus on national goals.
Those remarks referred to post-secondary education, just one of the set of programs with which Bill C-96 deals, but very clearly that makes the point that the Conservative Party promised to turn around the past attempt to squeeze the provinces and, instead, offer increases which would keep up with the increase in the Gross National Product and therefore provide the provinces with the financial mechanisms required to fill the crucial needs of the people in the fields of education and medical care and to fill the other basic needs for which federal financing provides.
What is the reality as opposed to the promises made by Conservative Members before they were elected? The reality is that Bill C-96, instead of bringing a return to fairness, predictability and consensus with the provinces, has brought an increase in the slash-and-cut technique for which the Conservatives blamed the Liberals prior to the 1984 election. Conservative Members were right to blame the Liberals for that kind of slash-and-burn technique. They are wrong now to adopt that technique and to put into effect what amounts to, first, a complete break from their own promises and, second, a reproduction of past Liberal mistakes.
In reality, as a result of this Bill, there will be a tremendous decrease in the funding available to the provinces to meet basic human needs. Under the old formula which is in existence at the moment, the provinces expected to receive roughly $97.7 billion in federal contributions between 1986 and 1991. The new formula which Bill C-96 will put into effect will provide roughly $92.1 billion. One does not have to be a mathematical whiz to see that a cut of more than $5 billion has been imposed on the provinces.
I say to the Conservative back-benchers who represent Ontario that they should be protesting against this Bill particularly strongly. The cuts under this Bill will hit Ontario in larger measure than any other province. According to our statistics, over five years, in excess of $2 billion will be cut back from the amount of money the Province of Ontario would
have expected to receive from the federal Government in order to pay for basic post-secondary education costs and medical care.
We might ask ourselves why it is that the Province of Ontario faces a serious crisis in health care. This was shown by the protests of doctors and medical personnel which were heard yesterday in Toronto. Why is that crisis in health care being experienced? Why is a crisis in funding for postsecondary education being experienced? Students and university professors have spoken to our committee and other committees about that crisis. The answer is very clear. It is because of the slash-and-burn technique which Conservative Members are now putting into effect in the name of some kind of crazy deficit reduction which is occurring on the backs of the ordinary people of Canada. It is not fair, it is not just and it should not be permitted in a federal system. There should be a bond of faith in the federal system between the federal Government and the provinces that they are guaranteed a set amount of money on which they can count.
We have here a Bill which not only breaks promises to the people of Canada but also breaks faith with the whole federal system in which the Government claims to have such great faith and belief. It is, in short, Mr. Speaker, an example of how badly misguided this Conservative Government has become in the less than two years since it took office.
For myself I have to say that it is with great regret that I see Bill C-96 brought before this House of Commons for it represents the destruction of the faith people had in a change of Government and what that change might have brought about.


B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-96 has to do with what we call the established programs financing arrangements which are negotiated between the federal Government and the provinces of Canada. It is called EPF for short and it deals with health and post-secondary education. The reason we have EPF is very simple. It was decided a long time ago that what we wanted in this country was to have nationally acceptable standards in health care and education. What we are doing with Bill C-96 is changing an established programs funding into a destabilized programs funding. We are destabilizing the program. Instead of EPF it is DPF.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has offered a rationale for Bill C-96. It goes something like this. What we have at the present time is a runaway deficit. The impact of this runaway deficit is far greater than that of shifting it to the provinces. That is the Minister's argument. Let us consider that for a moment. I do not think we can disagree with the Minister of Finance that we do have a runaway deficit for that is hard to argue against. It is hard to say that the deficit is not a serious national problem. It is so serious that in the very near future, in the early 1990s, we may be spending 50 cents on every tax dollar collected just to pay the interest on the
May 8, 1986

national debt. What happens when that figure reaches 75 per cent or 90 per cent? It is obvious that most Government departments would be irrelevant. They will no longer be required. Parliament itself will not have much of a function. We would probably need only one government Department and one government agency. We would need Taxation Canada to collect the money and transfer it to the Bank of Canada, which would disburse it to those people who were fortunate enough to own government bonds of one kind or another or treasury bills. That is what would be called the Government of Canada,.
The situation is serious and I have to agree with the Minister that the deficit is serious. What we need is a national program. We need all political Parties, all publicly-elected people from the municipal through the provincial and federal level, to co-operate to do something about our burgeoning national debt.
That brings me back to Bill C-96. Is it really the answer, as proposed by the Minister of Finance, simply to take a portion of the federal deficit and transfer it to the provinces? I find that very difficult to accept as a reasonable solution, but not all Hon. Members agree with me.
For example, yesterday or the day before the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker), who is a government supporter and a former member of the Manitoba Legislature, argued that the provinces have some responsibility for restraining their expenditures. I found that argument a bit puzzling. I am not aware, and I certainly stand to be corrected, of a single province that is not taking some action to restrain its own expenditures. I think there is a consciousness in all of the provincial capitals that they must do what they can do to control their own deficits.
The Member for Winnipeg-St. James went on to argue that with Bill C-96 we are not cutting back at all because there will still be increases. He argued that there will not be decreases, there will be increases, so really there are no cutbacks.
That is a fatuous argument. We know there is in place now an agreement between the provinces and the federal Government. I thought these agreements were binding, but apparently they can be broken arbitrarily. They can be broken unilaterally. That bothers me because the Party opposite now in power argued that that should not be done. More than that I am bothered because two aspects of our national life, postsecondary education and health, will certainly suffer as a result of Bill C-96.
I would like to ask Members on the government side whether they believe that post-secondary education in Canada is overfunded. Is post-secondary education receiving an unduly large share of the amount of financial resources that are available? I took a careful look at that matter, and discovered that from 1977 to 1985 there was a very large increase in the enrolment, 27 per cent in our universities, over that period of
Criminal Code
time. In the colleges, the increase was even more significant, that is, 36 per cent.
How much additional funds flowed from the federal Government during that period of time to offset the increases? Government support increased by only 2.5 per cent. I am talking here about an actual increase. We have to take into account inflation. You cannot add that in because it means that higher salaries to keep up with inflation and operating costs of universities and colleges have to match inflation. This was an actual increase over and above inflation of 2.5 per cent, but it does not square with the increased demands placed on our post-secondary institutions.
Mr. Ed Anderson, President of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said:
Proposed federal cuts to post-secondary education could place a university education beyond the reach of many students.
There is a basic problem with Bill C-96. It is unfair, it is arbitrary and, if I can conclude with just a short quote, let me say that I agree with The Telegraph Journal which wrote:
It is essential that the deficit be reduced and it is essential that the burden of the deficit be spread fairly across Canada and all regions of Canada. What the federal Government is doing does not ensure such fairness in the sharing of the burden.
The Telegraph Journal wrote this with respect to Bill C-96.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT RESPECTING LEGAL COUNSEL FOR UNBORN CHILD
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. O'Neil Bill C-254, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (legal counsel for unborn child), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Pat Binns (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-254 which I consider to be a very important Bill in that it deals with the protection of the unborn child. I believe that if the proposed amendment to the Criminal Code were adopted we would see a strengthening of the protection of the unborn child.
As a Member, I have chosen to speak on this Bill because I think it is very important. It is a subject which evokes very strong feelings in most Canadians. I am sure that my rising to speak on the Bill will cause concern for some of my constituents who will disagree with my views. Nevertheless, I feel a

May 8, 1986
Criminal Code
responsibility to do all 1 can to protect innocent, helpless, human life. Human life is sacred because it comes from God and, therefore, I feel that as a legislator I must act to defend innocent human beings, including the unborn.
In my opinion, abortion is not an acceptable alternative to the inconvenience of pregnancy. However, if the life or health of a mother is threatened and an operation which cannot be avoided results in the death of an unborn child, that is acceptable as long as the intent of the operation was to maintain life rather than to kill.
I believe that free, strong countries cannot survive or prosper if Governments lack the moral courage to protect innocent, helpless people. For this reason I feel that our country should not only protect the unborn child, but that Canada should also attempt to set an example for other countries, which have liberalized their abortion laws and customs, to follow. Someone must stand up for the unborn since they cannot do so themselves. The responsibility to support life vigorously rests with this House.
1 am told that in my own province many women travel to other provinces or the United States each month to obtain abortions. It is unfortunate that unwanted pregnancies occur in the first place, and I am among the first to support the need for more sex education programs which would prevent such things from happening. I also suggest that our churches should increase their activities with regard to family life and sex education. I see education as an alternative to continued criminalization of the abortion procedure and imposition of government sanctions. However, these appear to be necessary in the short run.
Some people would have us believe that most countries in the world have liberalized their abortion laws to the point where abortion on demand is permitted at the unconditional request of the woman. In fact, this is not the case. Only 10 countries in the world permit unconditional abortions. Some countries, including Ireland, the Philippines, and Portugal provide absolutely no exemption from absolute prohibition of abortion, even for the narrow purpose of saving the mother's life.
Some people would have us believe that most women believe that abortion is morally acceptable. However, a poll taken by Life magazine in 1983 indicates that 56 per cent of women polled believe it is morally wrong. It is also interesting to note the policy of the Canadian Medical Association. A policy document of that association indicates that the CMA is "opposed to abortion on demand or the use of the procedure as a method of birth control emphasizing the importance of counselling services, family planning facilities, and services and access to contraceptive information".
This matter has often been raised in the House in the past. Many present and former Members have had some very interesting things to say on the subject. I think it would be worthwhile for me to review some of the comments made in
recent years. Mr. Bill Yurko, the former Member for Edmonton East, introduced two Private Members' Bills in the House dealing with the subject of abortion. On November 18, 1980, in the House of Commons he said:
This is not a partisan issue. It is a moral issue of profound importance. It is an issue upon which each individual must reflect and make up his own mind.
I have always lived by the philosophy that it is my duty to protect, enhance, improve, cherish and embrace human life in all its dimensions. I have always asked myself the fundamental question: what is human life?
He goes on to say:
-in my estimation human life is a unique form of intelligence. At conception this intelligence is programmed and it evolves with the simple provision of an environment and a means of feeding. It is totally programmed, it is human life right after the moment of conception.
The Member for	Kindersley-Lloydminster	(Mr. McKnight), who is now the Minister of Labour, spoke in debate on Bill C-216 in the House of Commons on that same date. He said:
Bill C-216 is simple and straightforward. Its intention is to erase the loophole which literally permits abortion on demand and to ensure that the unborn child receives the full protection of the law and to repeal the section of the Criminal Code which allows therapeutic abortion committees to be formed.
He went on to say:
Although the issue of abortion is emotional, it is one upon which we cannot be silent. Since the abortion law was put in place 11 years ago, over 450,000 innocent children, human beings, have been killed.
We cannot be shrill or strident; we must be rationale and have certain expections of the people of Canada. In each and every one of us there is the emotion to recognize humanity. Humanity has many definitions. The definition which I in my own mind and conscience accept is that of the human being, whether it be a human being outside the womb or a human being in the womb.
On January 19, 1981, the Hon. Member for Richmond- South Delta (Mr. Siddon), who is now the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, quoted some StatsCan statistics which indicated
-a further alarming increase in the use of abortion as a means of population control-
He noted that:
-18 innocent children were sacrificed by abortion last year for every 100 live births, with 34 abortions to every 100 live births in my Province of British Columbia alone.
He went on to move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) and endorsed by many Members of the House:
That this House stand in silence for two minutes, in memory of the 65,135 innocent Canadian human infants whose lives were taken away by abortion during the past year; and furthermore this House admits, to its shame, that these acts have been taken with the consent of the Government of Canada.
There was obviously a great deal of concern expressed there, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to quote a Member of this House for whom I have a great deal of respect. On October 17, 1983, the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) made a statement with regard to abortion. In speaking about Dr. Henry Morgentaler's abortion clinic he quoted a Toronto newspaper story which read in part: "Dr. Henry Morgentaler will defy the law and reopen his Toronto abortion clinic-". He said:
May 8, 1986

I can see nothing noble about this man breaking and defying the laws of Canada. Abortions to protect the life of the mother are legal today, but Dr. Morgentaler wants abortion on demand. He wants abortion to be a birth control measure, and he thinks freedom of choice should be extended to allow for the murder of another human being-yes, even an unborn child.
He went on to say:
World famous scientists like Professor A. W. Liley of Aukland, New Zealand, confirm that what is in the womb is "a person, a full human being that can cry, hiccup, dream, kick, suck a thumb, take "food", regulate fluid volume, have heart beats and fingerprints-a totally separate individual who stops his mother's periods and who decides when labour should begin".
Murder is murder, whether it occurs before birth or after birth. If we permit unborn and so-called unwanted babies to be killed, the next step may be to permit the killing of the crippled, the abnormal and the aged.
Many other Hon. Members have spoken on this issue in this House with much more authority and experience than I have. I certainly endorse the remarks and previous statements made by speakers in debate on this very important issue. 1 wish the Hon. Member success with his Bill because I think this is one of the most critical and important basic issues with which the House of Commons will be faced in future years.


Mr. Albert Girard (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to rise and speak on Bill C-254, an Act to amend the Criminal Code to provide legal counsel for the unborn child at meetings of therapeutic abortion committees.
A Bill such as this is fraught with difficulties, even, I venture to say, insurmountable difficulties. To begin with, I am very reluctant to support legislation which would force costs of a substantial nature upon the provinces. The Minister of Social Services for each province, who is responsible for the provision of counsel under this Bill, is I am sure endeavouring to restrain or reduce costs in his or her department at a time of fiscal restraint. The expense of providing highly-paid legal counsel would be prohibitive. Even if one were to deflect this with the notion that legal aid could provide counsel, it must be realized that legal aid is also paid for by the taxpayer. My understanding is that the federal Government, through the Department of Justice, shares the cost of providing criminal legal aid. Through the Department of National Health and Welfare it shares the cost of some civil legal aid as an item of need under the Canada Assistance Plan. I also note that provincial plans are under the jurisdiction of provincial Ministers of Justice, not Ministers of Social Services. No matter which plan offers legal aid, however, there is a fundamental threshold of eligibility, both financial and legal, and those standards are determined by the individual provinces.
How would one determine the eligibility of the fetus for legal aid? Do we simply provide legal aid across the board? Free counsel for all? If so, what about the provision of legal counsel for the individual carrying the fetus? It must be assumed that representation for the unborn will turn the committee into an adversarial arena, with mother and fetus in an adversarial relationship. As well, the rules of natural justice would seem to require that if the state provides free legal counsel to one party without regard to financial eligibility, it
Criminal Code
must do the same for the other party as well. In addition, I can see the argument arising that the father and other family members should also be allowed to intervene in these proceedings with counsel, as well as other interested parties such as social service agencies. If I were a doctor sitting on one of those committees I would most certainly wish to have counsel advise me as well. Who is going to pay for all this?
Apart from the matter of the expense of state intervention, there are other, equally serious ramifications involved in this proposed amendment. As currently set out in the Criminal Code of Canada, the therapeutic abortion committee is to be comprised of three medical doctors. If this proposed amendment were to pass, we would be asking medical practitioners to hear and determine points of law. They are not qualified to do that. In the parlance of administrative law we would be asking the medical profession to make judicial or quasi judicial decisions. Apart from the sheer improbabilty and impropriety of such a move, by turning the procedure into a judicial hearing the rules of natural justice will come into play. No longer will the committee consist of medical practitioners reaching a medical determination. The addition of counsel and legal argument and the rules of natural justice mean the incorporation of the right to notice, the right to a fair hearing, the right to be heard, and the inclusion of a plethora of case law or precedents which have been developed in this area over the years. I can envision a backlog of cases which, in all likelihood, could strike at the very fundamental right to be heard.
We must remember that time is of the essence in these matters. Delay due to preliminary motions or adjournments or other common legal procedures could strike at the very heart of the therapeutic abortion committee. Delays could result in a pregnancy going beyond the vital first trimester where a necessary abortion can be safely performed. As well, it would seem that further amendments might be required in order to place persons on the committee who are knowledgeable enough to deal with the inevitable legal arguments this proposed amendment invite. In short, the Bill proposes to change in a fundamental way the very nature of the committee as it is now set out in the Criminal Code.
We easily speak of rights in this day and age, but we must be careful to remember that rights laid down in legislation are absolute and lead to rules, regulations and bureaucracy, and can therefore lead to obstruction of the desired outcome. We cannot fiddle or tinker with the law and not expect that to lead often to greater complexity.
My final point of concern relates to the actual administration of this proposed scheme. What procedures will be put in place to effect representation for the unborn? Will there be a panel of lawyers available? How will they be selected? Given the wide difference of opinion in our society on the abortion issue, one can assume that a range of opinion is present within the legal profession. Will this work be available only to lawyers who are philosophically opposed to or supportive of abortion? Even if the bar maintains its neutrality in acting for the

May 8, 1986
Criminal Code
unborn regardless of personal opinion, how does counsel receive instructions? Will it somehow be deemed they are to oppose the abortion automatically? If counsel cannot receive instructions from the client, is it his or her opinion which will be put forward? If counsel must be opposed, what would happen in cases of a pregnancy resulting from rape or incest?
The argument over abortion will continue. There will never be unanimity of opinion. The current section of the Criminal Code is a result of long study and a solid compromise with which most Canadians appear to agree. While the issue will continue to be the subject of debate, and while I commend the Hon. Member for his effort and concern in this area, the proposed amendment is too flawed to be put forward at this time.


Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, when I looked at this Bill I was reminded of Shakespeare. Was it not he who wrote in one of his plays that "the first thing we do, we kill all the lawyers".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: There is lots of applause in this House for that. I must say that I do not agree totally with Shakespeare's sentiments or with the applause. I do not know if I am right now, but I was a member of the Bar of British Columbia and the Bar of the Northwest Territories. By "bar", of course, I do not mean what ordinary Canadians think of as a bar.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: There are a number of those.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: There are a number of those involved as well. I mean the time honoured and well-respected legal profession. What do they call it, the second oldest profession? We barristers and solicitors know we are, if not the first, the second oldest profession, at least among solicitors. I will not mention the other solicitors out there.
Before I get into the content of this Bill I want to tell you a little story concerning lawyers. There was a cruise ship off the Bahamas last winter. There was a businessmen's convention in progress on board and there were two lawyers there. They were arguing about a legal point. The argument got so heated, rather like those of the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) sometimes here in the House of Commons or in the committees, that the lawyers fell overboard into the shark-infested waters. Immediately a bunch of sharks came up, but they suddenly formed a line and the two lawyers were able to swim right back to the boat. The businessman said: "That was a miracle". One of the wives of the lawyers looked over and said: "No, that is not a miracle, that was just professional courtesy". It seems to me that this is what is often thought of lawyers. The reason I mentioned it in connection with this Bill is that this is a Bill that for the first time goes beyond birth to get that ancient profession once again involved. I wondered when I was a lawyer how fortunate I was because I could go beyond death on the other end. I could send my bill not to the poor client, who was already gone, but I could send it to his or
her estate. I could collect from the estate, and it was all very nice. You could go beyond death.
They say you cannot take it with you, but lawyers can get it from you after you have gone by doing all the work, handling the estate. Each province has a Wills Act, death duties and probating wills. If you die without a will, you still have lawyers who have to put you through a process called dying intestate, without a will. You have to go to court, make an application, and you incur legal bills. What this Private Member's Bill, does, while it is well intentioned, is to involve lawyers now before birth. When the poor kid comes out, you could sort of, if I can put it that way, give it a lawyer's bill. So you are born, and what do you get? You get a lawyer's bill. What a way to face the earth.
I must say I have mixed opinions about that. I do not want to make fun of this. I personally would benefit from it, as would my colleagues, the barristers and solicitors of this country, who would be quite pleased to be able to submit a bill. It is quite possible that you could have, with this Bill, someone coming into the world owing money to a lawyer who appeared before an abortion committee. I know that is extending it a little, and I know the Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) would perhaps want me to be more serious in dealing with this.
Let me get away from lawyers and talk a little bit more about the Bill. The Hon. Member who last spoke, my colleague and friend from Maritime Canada, raised some interesting points. A good point he made was, how would counsel get instructions? They obviously do not get it from the fetus. They have to get it from somewhere. Do they oppose the abortion? Do they agree to the abortion? What if there is medical evidence to say the fetus, when born, will be born with Down's syndrome or with another handicapping disease, or will be born with permanent mental or brain damage? Those things can be discovered now. What if that is the situation? Does the lawyer take the position that, as counsel on behalf of the fetus, he is arguing that the fetus should be aborted? That is possible, I think, under this particular Bill. Perhaps some of the other Members will show me how this would not happen. I think that is what the Member who last spoke was getting at, by saying that, in spite of the intention of the Bill, there are a lot of questions that remain to be answered.
How does Legal Aid choose a lawyer? Presumably the lawyers are professionals and they would argue the matter properly. Even that is difficult. Who is your client? Is your client the family? The mother? The mother wants the abortion, presumably. Is your client one of these crazies like Joe Borowski, one of these kinds of people? Is that your client? Is your client like people who go around hitting people over the head in front of Doctor Morgentaler's clinic? Is that who you have to listen to?
Members of this House know how difficult the abortion issue is. Can you imagine some poor lawyer, in his first case, when he goes to the abortion committee having to go through a
May 8, 1986

picket line of pro or anti-abortionists? It would be absurd. It is not hard to indicate some of the difficulties here.
The Member mentioned the possibility of a rape case or an incest case. This is another example where, if I were counsel in the case, I would probably want to argue the possibility of abortion. It raises some fundamental issues about taking instructions, what kind of instructions, and even theorizing what a handicapped fetus would want. There are arguments on many sides here.
The Member who last spoke also talked about the current law on therepeutic abortions and the doctors' committee. I do not know if he heard a person I very much enjoy listening to on the radio, Mr. Peter Gzowski of Morningside on CBC Radio, but he had the other day women doctors on the program who were talking about their patients, women who wanted abortions. They talked about the terrible delays these women were having with the present system. I know the Member who last spoke said the present system is acceptable. I do not believe it is acceptable. These doctors were recounting how their patients were suffering, and that what would have been a simple matter, in terms of a medical operation for an abortion, became much more complicated as the matter was delayed for a number of weeks. It made it harder for the operation, it made it more difficult medically. Irrespective of what you want to argue on the abortion matter, the evidence that they gave was irrefutable, there was a problem with the delay in getting an abortion.
Would this Bill, and the appointment of a counsel-and again I say we lawyers look for business anywhere we can get it-but to be honest, does this not raise a lot of problems in terms of the potential for even further delay? A lawyer needs time to consult, time to prepare a brief and so on. What would happen is that there would be no abortion. That is really what would happen.
Maybe the inarticulated major premise behind this is that they really do not want any abortions at all. It is not a Bill about legal counsel for the unborn child. Then we are back to the days of abortions in the back alleys. I think I have made my point, which is the difficulties of having counsel in such a situation. I cannot help noting that Shakespeare certainly would not approve of this because he wanted to get rid of the lawyers, and now this Bill would get them not only after death, but even before birth.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this important debate on Bill C-254. Before commencing my remarks I would just like to clarify briefly the purpose of the legislation, at least on paper. The Bill requires that every fetus be represented by counsel at a meeting of the therapeutic abortion committee. In my view, Mr. Speaker, while one examines this Bill, and on the face of it it is an Act to amend the Criminal Code to provide for legal counsel for an unborn child, in fact, that is a sham and an illusion. The real purpose of this legislation is to implement the policy of the Hon. Member, which is to in fact get rid of all abortions in Canada under all circumstances.
Criminal Code
In my view, by prolonging an already unworkable abortion procedure, this Bill indirectly seeks to make legal abortions virtually impossible to obtain in Canada. Because of its perspective, which is fundamentally opposed to freedom of choice, I am rising in opposition to this legislation.
I might say as well, just so that my position on this subject is clear for the record, that I have in fact tabled a Private Members' Bill, Bill C-238, which would remove the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with abortion and allow this decision to be made by the woman in consultation with her doctor. Certainly, I believe I have an obligation in participating in this important debate to make it very clear where I stand on this question.
Existing Criminal Code provisions generally prohibit abortions unless they are performed in an approved hospital with a therapeutic abortion committee of at least three doctors which has certified that the woman's life or health is likely to be endangered by the continuation of the pregnancy. I note, however, that the establishment of therapeutic abortion committees is not mandatory. In fact, out of a total of 1,300 hospitals in Canada, only 250 have set up committees, and 20 per cent of those hospitals that have established committees do not in fact perform any abortions at all.
Although any decision which is made by a therapeutic abortion committee has very serious implications for the individual woman's future health and welfare, she is not, under Canadian law, entitled to be present at the committee hearing. Nor is she permitted to be represented by counsel at the hearing of the therapeutic abortion committee. The irony of this legislation is that if it were to be adopted, the foetus would have the right to legal representation, but the woman herself would be denied the right to legal representation. Surely the House cannot accept that kind of situation.
Present provisions of the Criminal Code governing abortions have been found to be in contempt of women by panelists in Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Edmonton and Halifax. These are panelists who are travelling across Canada and reviewing the laws from a woman's perspective. In addition, three juries have acquitted Dr. Henry Morgentaler of abortion-related charges.
Recent Gallup polls indicate that 72 per cent of Canadians call upon the Government to ensure access to safe therapeutic abortions. Recent British polls also indicate extensive public support for the fundamental principle of a woman's right to choose.
The Private Members' Bill of the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) ignores these findings and would further restrict and, in practical terms, totally deny the woman's freedom of choice. This is yet another example of the disregard by members of the Conservative caucus of the fundamental concerns of women and their attempt to impose the views of a vociferous and shrill minority on the majority of Canadians.

May 8, 1986
Criminal Code
According to Dr. Nikki Colodny, who performs therapeutic abortions at the Morgentaler Clinic in Toronto, Canadian abortion laws themselves are criminal because they establish a medical delivery system of abortion services which is unnecessarily dangerous and institutionalizes unsafe medical practices. It is women who continue to suffer as a result of this unjust law. The Bill before the House now, by further limiting access to safe therapeutic abortions, simply sanctions unsafe medical practices.
Because of the lack of reasonable access to abortion under the present therapeutic abortion committee system, Canadian women are forced to wait an average of eight weeks between their first appointment and the performance of their abortion. As a result of these delays, Canada has the second highest rate of mid-trimester abortions of all the industrialized nations. By requiring that the fetus be represented by counsel at the therapeutic abortion committee hearing, as proposed by the Hon. Member's Bill, there would simply be further delays, and this would contribute to an even higher rate of mid-trimester abortions and further complications to the woman involved.
Let me point out that therapeutic abortion committees represent the only instance, outside of dealing with mentally incompetent individuals, where a person has three doctors who have never met her, and are not chosen by her, reviewing her private medical records and passing judgment on her health care needs. These doctors are also being asked to make a medical decision about women with whom they have no professional relationship whatsoever. By further complicating and prolonging the already unwieldy and unworkable therapeutic abortion committee process, the Bill before the House would legitimize a system which in effect treats women as somehow mentally incompetent and asks doctors to perform functions for which they have not been properly trained.
As a member of the Subcommittee on Equality Rights of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, I had the opportunity to hear extensive testimony from across Canada on the provisions of the Criminal Code dealing with abortion. In my view, the present Criminal Code provisions governing abortion are one of the most glaring examples of discrimination against women under Section 15 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Code provisions discriminate against women by singling out a particular medical procedure for regulation, which, of course, happens to be carried out on women alone.
The Code provisions are also unequal in their geographic applications, due to discrepancies in hospital policies and procedures. For example, we heard that there were no therapeutic abortion committees in Prince Edward Island. Similarly, women in rural areas or communities in which no therapeutic abortion committees have been set up must travel to other parts of Canada or, in some cases, to the United States to obtain access to abortions. This Bill, which would further restrict a
woman's right to choose, makes a mockery of sexual and economic equality in Canada.
The fact is that the purpose of this Bill is to make abortions illegal. In countries where abortions are illegal, women continue to need and obtain abortions. A further limitation on Canadian women's access to this procedure, therefore, is unlikely to result in a decrease in the number of abortions performed. It will only result in a decrease in the number of safe legal abortions. Any additional limitation on a woman's right to choose, such as that contained in the Bill before the House, would simply assist in recreating the pre-1969 scenario when abortions were completely illegal and women had to resort to back room abortionists. If further laws limiting women's access to abortion are passed in Canada, more and more Canadian women will suffer from the effect of these back room abortions or, indeed, selfinduced abortions by desperate women.
I do not question the goal, which I am sure all Members of the House share, to try to reduce and limit the number of abortions performed in Canada. However, I do not believe that additional prohibitions in the Criminal Code will achieve this end. For this reason amongst others, I emphasize that the policy of the New Democratic Party calls for decriminalization of abortion and the repeal of these provisions from the Criminal Code.
If the Government and the Hon. Member were serious about limiting the number of abortions, they would support positive preventive schemes rather than unrealistic, unworkable, and punitive Criminal Code prohibitions. Constructive measures which could be taken include financial support for family planning and counselling agencies such as Planned Parenthood, conducting research into safer and more effective birth control, introduction of sex education into schools, provision of more information on birth control to young people generally and greater financial and related support services for poor families and single parents.
The Government and this Bill does nothing constructive in the area of family planning. We in the New Democratic Party support the objectives of the Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada in taking steps to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies. Certainly we will continue to resist legislation such as this which attacks the fundamental freedom of choice of Canadian women.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to express my views on the Bill presented by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands- Canso (Mr. O'Neil). The purpose of the Bill before the House is to have every unborn child represented before the therapeutic abortion committee by State-appointed counsel who would be responsible for upholding the provisions of the Criminal Code. Such a measure would radically change the present system.
May 8, 1986

Mr. Speaker, I shall, if I may, elaborate somewhat on the question to make my colleagues aware of what is at stake. We are talking about abortion. We are talking about the right to life. We are talking about the right to keep a fetus from being brought to term, from completing its nine-month development and being born.
I would like to draw a parallel with ... You know, Mr. Speaker, between 40,000 and 45,000 people die of hunger every day, and most of these are children. Has anyone set up an international or national committee to help these children, to help all these people out of this terrible situation? Has anyone given them a better life than the one they know today? No, Mr. Speaker, because what usually happens is that we spend millions so the media can show us how awful the lives of these people are.
Mr. Speaker, I think we can draw this parallel, because abortion is a fairly complex question. It is a matter where the feelings of the mother come first, because after all, she is the one who bears the fetus, but we must also think of the fetus, because it is a being that has a right to live like any other entity-I don't think we can say: you don't have the right and you do-it is a matter on which Canadian men and women generally tend to let their emotions speak first, and this is quite normal because our emotions are a part of us.
The second reason-today, we would call it a social or economic reason.
For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I think we must look at the state of our society. Can we allow ... These are the moral questions-not whether we want to set up a committee or not-these are the moral questions our society is asking today.
Do we morally have the right to let a baby come into this world if he or she will be deprived of essential services and care right from birth? Do we morally have the right to let a child be born without parents to raise and educate him or her? Conversely, we might consider this alternative: Do we as civilized Canadian men and women have the right to let a human being die in a society such as ours, a society of plenty, an affluent society , an industrialized society, a society where most men and women own their house and enjoy material wealth? These are two basic questions, Mr. Speaker, questions of principle which transcend any legislation and go far beyond the mere legal purview of the Bill now before the House.
You know, Mr. Speaker, it is convenient to say: We will appoint a lawyer for this, and we will appoint a lawyer for that. Does the Bill provide counsel for the father? Does the Bill provide counsel for the mother? What right, what privilege does any lawyer enjoy to come to the defence of the foetus? What is the position of the foetus, if any? What about the position of the mother? As you know, Mr. Speaker, when an abortion is necessary it has to be done without undue delay, and we all know how very slowly the judicial system works.
I think it is important to consider the context, to realize how serious the matter is, and to keep in mind that the existing
Criminal Code
legislation has authorized therapeutic hospital abortion since 1969.
However, before seeking to improve the legislation as my colleague from Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil) would do, or curtail rights as my colleague from Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) advocates, the basic question should be to ask ourselves how the existing Act is being enforced. We should sit down and consider how the Act is being interpreted. Over the past few years what has been the social evolution of the people who make the decisions, the people who sit on these committees? What criterion guides the people and physicians who sit on a committee responsible for saying yes or no to therapeutic abortions? Just what are their guidelines? The Criminal Code, as prescribed in the Act? Is priority given to health hazards threatening the expectant mother? Or is consideration given to the social environment and the way of life of the pregnant woman?
In my view, it is important, Mr. Speaker, that we stop and look at how complex such a legislation can be, that we stop and discuss and think about how important the life of a human being can be, even though he or she is still unborn, even though in many cases we do not yet know his or her sex, that we stop and think about how important the life of the mother, the life of the father, the social impact on that family are, if we want that everything proceed properly.
I was listening earlier to my colleague for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) who stated that according to a poll, 72 per cent of respondents-although the figure may be slightly less, I think it was 72 per cent, and please correct me if I am wrong-were for maintaining abortion.
Recently I made a survey in my own constituency. The question was quite simple. I asked: "Are you for or against abortion?" And on the bottom line I added: "Comments, if any." Mr. Speaker, I had over 3,000 answers. This is much more than a national survey, as you know, 3,000 answers. And of those 3,000 people, 80 per cent were against abortion. In the majority of cases, reasons were not even given for being against. In some cases, respondents suggested: If we were all in favour of abortion, you might not be there. We have no right to kill a human being. We have no right to put a price on someone's head for the sake of temporary principles, economic principles. Very few people wrote to say: "Mr. Champagne, we support abortion." Very few. Those men and women who wrote and gave me their reasons referred to the ones I indicated earlier-economic reasons, social reasons, that could be termed rational reasons to a certain extent.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it would be useful and interesting, before we decide to have such a legislation passed, before we overload a legislation which is already quite involved in itself since it already rules on the life or death of a human being, since it rules on what will be the future of a human being that cannot defend itself, I say it would be important in the first place to discuss the matter fully, rather than submit it to the House as a piece of legislation or simply enact it, to have the

May 8, 1986
Criminal Code
issue debated on its merits and discussed with those who are mainly involved.
You know, Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret that there are not many women Members in this Elouse. Yet, if there are people who should have their say about this, who should be able to chose, who would be in the best position to give an opinion, 1 honestly believe that it is women, and if I am wrong, I hope that someone will correct me. Yet, when have we seen a panel of women who have been through abortion, women who are for, or against abortion, discuss and develop a policy and determine to what extent it should be applied?
On the contrary, Mr. Speaker, what is now being proposed is that a lawyer be brought in to judge the matter. But to judge what when we do not even know the priorities of the people involved? In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this is carrying principles a bit too far. Instead, we should sit down and listen to people and really look closely at a social problem which is becoming increasingly serious. I think that we would then be able to develop regulations which would not be based simply on legal principles, but rather on human considerations. Indeed, in my opinion, the principle of abortion itself is a human issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway has spoken.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I am from Vancouver East and I haven't spoken.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am sorry, Vancouver East. On Friday, January 17, 1986, on the motion, at page 9915 of Hansard, I have the Hon. Member speaking.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I did not realize this was a Bill carried over from a previous time.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-254, an Act to amend the Criminal Code to provide for legal counsel for the unborn child at meetings of therapeutic abortion committees.

First, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) on his speech. 1 quite agree with him that this problem is extremely difficult for all of us in this House. It is a fundamental issue.
This Bill-

I would now like to say in English that I think that the proposed amendment is flawed in one sense. As the Hon. Member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) has said, it is flawed in the sense that we cannot bring such an important issue to the floor of the House of Commons in the form of an
amendment which has to be voted upon on the spot without thorough consideration.
Mr. Speaker, from having been in the House for as many years as you have, and having watched the House of Commons for as many years as I have from upstairs on the third floor, I cannot think of two more difficult issues for Members of Parliament, regardless of political stripe, than the issues of capital punishment and abortion. With respect to the issue of capital punishment, I believe the commitment of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to deal with the matter and to allow a free vote on it at some time in the future.
If the matter of abortion ever comes to a vote, as a matter of personal conscience and so that there will be absolutely no question in the minds of my constituents or my colleagues with respect to where I stand on the issue, I oppose abortion. I believe that life begins at the moment of conception. It is my strongly-held view that nothing should interrupt that life short of a medical emergency. If a pregnancy should develop into an emergency which threatens the life of either the mother or the child, then I am not qualified to judge. I am not a doctor. Very few of us in the Chamber are medical practitioners. I think that these situations can only be left to qualified medical practitioners. In my view, then, and only then, does the subject of abortion become a matter of concern between a woman and her doctor. I do not think that any law should govern that type of life and death situation save for the Hippocratic oath. I want to place on the record that, in principle, I am against abortion.
That being said, we have problems with this Bill. As I have said, few subjects are as controversial as is the subject of abortion. Clearly, the deep-seated reasons for the controversy surrounding this issue stem from the often irreconcilable personal choices available in such important, varied areas as morality, religion, sexuality, politics, and family and social life. There is no doubt that we will see a whole spectrum of opinion about something as personal as the matter of abortion. The same is true with respect to the issue of life and death in terms of capital punishment.
Whatever opinion a person has about the current abortion legislation, it is important to know the legal grounds of the issue. Bill C-254 deals with that issue. The reform introduced by Parliament in 1969 rectified an unbearable situation for the medical profession. What exactly was this situation? In what way did the reform change the rules of the game? Is it true, as some believe, that the law-makers chose to liberalize abortion by making it available for all practical purposes on demand? These are the main questions which the Government and all Members of Parliament are desperately attempting to answer.
I would like to give some background on the need for reform. I do not want to go on for too long because I believe my friend, the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg), would like to say a few words on this matter. However, I wish to say that there is a real need for reform. Whether a person is for or against the liberalization of the abortion law, there appears to be a consensus regarding the
May 8, 1986

absolute necessity in certain cases of terminating a pregnancy. How in fact can one be opposed to the idea of destroying a foetus when, in the opinion of competent members of the medical profession, the pregnancy truly endangers the life of the mother and could even bring about her immediate death? There are no fewer people today than before 1969 who would prefer to save the life of the mother who may already have children for whom she is responsible than that of the unborn child.
In conclusion, 1 do not think that we as politicians really have the medical qualifications or the moral qualifications to decide whether or not an abortion should be performed, except for the general principle that some of us just do not like the principle of abortion. We want the foetus as a growing human being to live and to enjoy life. Therefore, I think it is up to the doctor, on the basis of the Hippocratic oath, to decide whether the life of the baby or the mother is in danger. It is only up to them and not up to Parliament. We will have to come to grips with this issue at some point in time. I just wish to place on the record where I stand on this issue.
Mir. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, I too am honoured to rise this evening to speak on Bill C-254. I would like to thank my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott), for allowing me a few minutes. I do not know if I have many minutes in order to get my point across.
What I would like to say is that I agree with what my colleague from Hamilton-Wentworth has said. This is one of those issues that, no matter what we do, we will upset some people. As politicians, we often feel like referees in this business. When we blow the whistle, we upset half the crowd and please the other half. Normally, that breakdown is more like 80/20, or even 90/10, as opposed to 50/50.
I too oppose abortion. However, I also oppose this Bill for a variety of reasons. My colleague from British Columbia, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), who is a member of the NDP, raised some interesting points on this matter when he talked about the lawyers. It is bad enough that politicians have to make these decisions, but when we consider the lawyers, as opposed to doctors, we really get into trouble. Somebody said that when the Constitution was being debated and after the completion of the debate that it would make a great many lawyers a great deal of money over a long period of time. I am afraid that that has turned out to be true. That is similar to this Bill.
How will these lawyers be selected? There is a wide range of opinion in the legal profession. Would this work only be available to lawyers philosophically opposed to abortion? I am also very reluctant to support legislation which would force costs of a substantial nature upon the provinces. The Minister of Social Services, the Minister responsible for the provision of
Adjournment Debate
counsel under this Bill, for each province is endeavouring, I am sure, to reduce costs within his or her own Department in these times of severe fiscal restraint.
Those are some of the problems I have with this Bill. I see that you are indicating my time has almost expired, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to conclude by stating that while the issue will continue to be the subject of debate, and while I commend the Hon. Member for his efforts and concern in this area, the proposed amendment is too flawed to be put forth at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Last April 25, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister responsible I asked the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) whether his Government was trying to get out of meeting its commitments concerning funding of a new French educational television network in Ontario.
The President of the Treasury Board assured me that he would discuss the matter with the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) and provide an explanation for any delay in implementing the agreement.
Here are some of the background facts, Mr, Speaker. As you may recall, in October 1984 the federal Minister of Communications and the Minister of Civic and Cultural Affairs of Ontario began discussions which led to the December 18, 1984 announcement about an agreement in principle with respect to French educational TV services in Ontario.
This agreement in principle, Mr. Speaker, the federal and provincial Governments were bound to earmark up to $3 million a year each over a five-year period for TV Ontario network equipment and operating expenditures.
These monies will serve to increase to 70 hours a week French language programming on the educational television network in Ontario through a satellite cable transmission system.
On June 18, 1985, the Federal Minister of Communications and the Ontario Minister of Citizenship and Culture, Mr. Nick Leluk, announced officially this time a $30 million-

May 8, 1986
Adjournment Debate
subsidy for the funding of this network. According to a press release dated June 18, 1985, the Government of Canada's contribution had been made possible through some Secretary of State programs and funds available from Telefilm Canada for the development of Canadian programming.
Today, over a year and a half later, we have an accumulation of press releases announcing a French language educational television network in Ontario, but no definite or signed agreement, and the province has yet to receive the promised federal contribution. Without this financial contribution from the Federal Government, the province just could not on its own ensure the survival of a French language television network in Ontario.
That is why, on April 25 last, I asked the Minister in this House whether his Government was trying to evade its obligation or whether they would sign the agreement shortly.
On May 1, a few days ago, I wrote to the Minister of Communications to ask him to provide me with a specific answer concerning the said agreement with his provincial counterpart.
Mr. Speaker, I have yet to receive a written reply from the Minister of Communications, but today, in the course of a few telephone calls we made, I was informed that this very morning in Toronto, there was a meeting of federal and provincial representatives for the purpose of negotiating conditions that would be acceptable to both parties.
Mr. Speaker, I hope the negotiations were successful and that this evening, the Parliamentary Secretary who will respond on behalf of the Minister will be able to announce the official signing of the agreement and what the conditions are.
Mr. Speaker, this agreement is particularly important since the survival of French language educational television in Ontario is at stake.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) raised an interesting question on April 25, 1986, in relation to the Government's financial contribution to the creation of a French-language educational TV network in Ontario. My colleague, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), assured the Hon. Member that he would get a reply on these very important matters.
I am pleased to have the opportunity today to clarify commitments made by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) on behalf of the Government of Canada to assist in the establishment by TV Ontario of a French language educational network. I trust that my response today will also serve to correct misleading stories which appeared in the press on this very important issue.
Discussions with the Province of Ontario which began in December 1984 led last year to a joint commitment to provide
$30 million over five years for the creation of such a network and the production and broadcasting of French-language programming. The federal share, $3 million a year over five years, will be provided in equal amounts by the Department of the Secretary of State and Telefilm Canada, the agency administering the Broadcast Development Fund on behalf of the Minister of Communications Discussions with the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) have led to the allocation of $7.5 million over five years for both capital and production costs. 1 see the Member is smiling and agrees.
These funds are in addition to the existing commitment by the Secretary of State for educational programming by this network, which amount to some $ 1.6 million annually.
As for assistance by Telefilm Canada, the criteria governing eligibility for the Canadian Broadcast Program Development Fund were modified in March 1985 to allow access to the fund by independent producers for programming to be aired by provincial educational networks. As a result, assistance under the fund for both French language and English language programming has been available to TV Ontario for the past year.
Subsequently, and in addition to the initial understanding, it was agreed that the federal Government would endeavour to secure a commitment regarding the level of funding that could be made available by Telefilm.
The Minister of Communications has written to Telefilm Canada and is confident that if TV Ontario, in collaboration with independent producers, were to submit sufficient project proposals, the federal commitment would be met and $7.5 million in funding from Telefilm Canada would be made available over the next five years to enhance TV Ontario's broadcast programming.
At this point I would like to reiterate that the federal funding is in place and can be accessed by TV Ontario through the normal procedures governing the release of funds from both the Secretary of State and Telefilm programs. I might add that there is no signed federal-provincial agreement respecting these commitments other than joint public announcements made by the federal Communications Minister and the Ontario Citizenship and Culture Minister. The first of these consisted of an announcement of intent and was dated December 18, 1984.
On June 18, 1985 the federal Minister of Communications announced the sources of the federal contributions, the programs of the Secretary of State and Telefilm Canada. Federal funding is in place and our level of commitment to the project of establishing a French language educational network in the Province of Ontario has not wavered in any way.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Best answer I have had.
May 8, 1986


CANADA POST CORPORATION-CLOSURE OF ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY POST OFFICE
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, in response to a question put on April 15 last questioning the justification in the closing of the only marine post office servicing those seamen using the St. Lawrence Seaway, the Minister responsible pointed out that it was done to save money and that it, the Post Office, was looking for a convenient alternative.
There is no convenient alternative. Will the company offices of those shipping lines of ships working on haphazard schedules handle the mail? Will the company official or clerk open his doors or travel to the canal as that deckhand waits for word from his wife and family? Is this family communication to be reduced to emergency electronic ship to shore communications only? Mail service is not anything to write home about now, Mr. Speaker, but does Canada Post consider a postal box at a tourist oriented pop-shop with its short hours, short weeks and even shorter season good enough for some 10,000 persons formerly served by the marine post office?
The Lock 5 site was chosen in the first place because it was the most convenient location along the Seaway. It is on the Welland Canal section of that waterway where it is said that "ships do climb the mountain". It is where ships going either up or down the Seaway go through three levels of flight locks, giving the seaman some three-quarters of an hour to transact business or to make personal contact with spouse and family and time as well to pick up the mail, address a response and still get back on the ship. It is the most convenient location on the Seaway from which those plying the Seaway waters have been served for the past 20 years and from the Welland Canal administration office before that.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, the closing of that Post Office will effect a savings. The amount is questionable, but if we can follow the logic of cutting service to save expense, I wonder where that logic would take us. Would the Post Office look at a remote village and say that delivery of mail will be stopped because it cannot be justified? Would the Post Office, for any reason stop mail delivery to a community of 10,000 persons without warning, without dialogue, and without justification?
If the Minister says that it is unfair to talk in terms of 10,000 persons, I will remind him that there are 5,000 seamen plying those lakes. Most of them have spouses and most of them have more than one business contact. It is the service to these people that is being cut off. I have had communications from mayors along the Welland Canal division, union leaders, businessmen and women, and seamen urging the restoration of postal service to this community of users.
I ask those responsible for the administration of the Post Office to not look for the easy way out by cutting service. They should look at the multibillion dollar operation which continues to operate at a loss across the land. I am sympathetic to
Adjournment Debate
the desire of the Government that we must save money, but to save it at the expense of service is an unfair and unjustifiable course of action. Forty-eight thousand dollars is a mere pittance compared to the amount spent by the Post Office. That amount could be found by finding a cost-efficient method of operating that coast-to-coast facility. Restore the service, Mr. Minister, and improve the efficiency of the operation.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) mentioned, in the past sailors had to pick up their mail at the Thorold Marine Sub Post Office located at Lock 5 along the Welland Canal. Canada Post has decided to give these sailors a more convenient and improved service. Canada Post's decision to close the Thorold Marine Sub Post Office was taken following consultations with representatives of shipping companies using the Canal facilities. These companies have long encouraged their employees, that is crew members aboard their ships, to have their mail addressed in care of their own particular companies.
Prior to the decision to close the Thorold Marine Sub Post Office, shipping company agents were already handling 80 per cent of the mail addressed to crew members on various ships. As early as last fall, ship owners indicated to Canada Post their willingness to utilize their internal mail distribution system and have their agents deliver not just 80 per cent, but 100 per cent of the mail addressed to employees working aboard these ships.
Shipping company agents, working in shifts, greet their ships at various points on a 24-hour basis. Shipping companies' own agents would know on which of their own ships their own employees are serving and thus be able to ensure that the mail reaches the crew member. It was after discussions with the various shipping companies that Canada Post determined it could provide a more convenient and improved service to these sailors by having their mail routed through the shipping companies' agents. These agents are located in most ports across the country. They provide these sailors with supplies and will now provide them with their mail. These sailors will now receive their mail at various points along their route through their companies' shipping agents. This will result in improved service for the sailors and save Canada Post $48,000 in the process, which will help the corporation cut its costs and help it to achieve its mandate set by Parliament to attain financial sufficiency.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6:16 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, May 9, 1986