1986-05-06

Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 67(2), I have the honour of laying on the Table in both official languages Order in Council P.C. 1986-1084, naming the list of Ministers authorized to act on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in his absence and the list of Acting Ministers.


Mr. Deans:: In their absence.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In their absence. Unanimous consent of the House is generally obtained to have this list published as an appendix to Hansard and I would ask for that unanimous consent in the usual manner.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the suggestion. Is there unanimous consent for the tabling of that document?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it might be possible to see the list before we give consent to have the list appended.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, may I address that? This is a matter of determining the Acting Ministers-


Ian Deans: Why didn't you send it over?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I would have done so but I just received it myself at the very last moment. There are not too many changes so it will not be a matter of any difficulty for the Hon. Member. There are only very minor variations.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, would it be possible then for the Chair to read the list that we are going to be asked to authorize?


Mr. Speaker:: Could I suggest that we hold the item for a moment, that copies be distributed and that we revert to Tabling of Documents after Statements by Ministers?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, on the understanding that we will defer Tabling of Documents, we will now move to Statements by Ministers.


EXTERNAL AID
Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I hardly need remind the House of the terrible famine that struck the African continent last year and continues to affect certain regions.

On that occasion, Canadians as a people really mobilized in coming to the assistance of those hit by this terrible blow. Their response took many forms. There was the remarkable job done by the news media, which made the public aware of the problem. The results of a survey released Friday indicate that 61 per cent of Canadians learned about the situation via television.

There was the work done by Canadian voluntary agencies, which tiredlessly expended time and effort under the umbrella organization called Africa Emergency Aid. Finally, there were donations from hundreds of thousands of Canadians of all ages, from all walks of life and all regions of Canada. As a Member and a Minister, I was particularly aware of the consensus in Parliament on the extraordinary measures the Government felt it must take and indeed did take. I am of course referring to the work done by the Canadian Emergency Co-ordinator African Famine, the Hon. David MacDonald. I want to pay tribute to his enthusiasm and energy and to his amazing talent for focussing the goodwill of so many people. I am also thinking of the contribution made by the Canadian International Development Agency.
Time and time again, when travelling in Africa, I listened to some very moving statements by Ministers, senior officials and even average citizens of Third World countries about the projects implemented by our development agency. I remember with considerable emotion that on the very day the BBC broadcast the first pictures of the famine, a ship sailed into the port of Assab in Ethiopia, carrying 36,000 tonnes of wheat sent through CIDA on behalf of Canada. I also think of the Members of this House who participated in a number of fact-

May 6, 1986
Statements by Ministers
finding missions to Africa and whose advice proved immensely useful.
Mr. Speaker, at a seminar we organized last year on the African crisis, we asked ourselves the question: What is going to happen once the TV cameras have left? That is the question I intend to answer today.
First of all, to remove any impression of condescending to the countries in question, I want to make it quite clear before the House that it is up to the Africans first of all to save and develop Africa. And since the last meeting of Heads of State of the OAU held last summer, we know they have the imagination and the determination to do so. The priority program for Africa's economic recovery which they designed is remarkable in its relevance. The African States have made it clear that their first priority will be agricultural development and continuing the struggle against drought and desertification. They have also confirmed their decision to implement policies for setting farm prices that will promote agricultural development and the well-being of their farmers.
Following this demonstration of firm purpose by our African partners, I wish to announce today in the House the launching of Africa 2000. The Government will thus designate all the measures it will take to meet the needs of the countries of the African continent over the next fifteen years and to provide them with the tools they require to achieve their recovery.
Africa 2000 is a 15-year commitment that the budgetary framework, put in place by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) last February, allows the Government to take in support of the development of the African continent.

The sum of $150 million has been released from CIDA's current budget and will be allocated solely to this operation during the next five years. This is in addition to the already impressive funding we have allocated to our aid and cooperation projects on the same continent. In the year 1986-87 alone, this will mean more than $900 million in transfers of money, goods and services by Canada for the benefit of Africa.
Africa 2000 will have three main themes: partnership between the Government and the Canadian private sector; the reorientation of our development policies; and finally, international consultation and co-operation.
By partnership I mean the Government's determination to work together with all individuals, groups and agencies in our society that are willing to become involved and do their share. This theme has been a favorite topic of mine over the last two years. I am convinced that to increase the effectiveness of our programs, we must have an association with the private sector. I am thinking here of voluntary agencies, municipalities, artists, schools, unions, twinning organizations and private businesses.

The voluntary agencies which took part in the Africa Emergency Aid Committee met recently in Ottawa on April 27 and April 28. They informed the Government that they wished to continue working together on projects of recovery and development in Africa, and they elected a committee to determine the ways in which their co-operative effort might function. In view of this, I wish to confirm that the Government will provide them with $75 million over the next five years to support their activities, within the $150 million allocation that I just announced.

This fund will be based on the Government's matching of public donations as suggested on several occasions by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly). I also agree wholeheartedly with their request for an early warning system, details of which I will be describing very shortly. Finally, I intend to give them responsibility for managing a program through which they can continue to increase the Canadian public's awareness of the situation in Africa. I am counting on the NGOs. I hope they will be our primary partner in operation Africa 2000.
In an operation of this size, I think there is also a place for commercial enterprises that know Africa because they work there. At the end of next week, my Parliamentary Secretary, the Hon. Member for Beauharnois-Salaberry (Mr. Hudon) will issue a formal invitation in Quebec City to Canadian businesses, asking them to become actively involved in operation Africa 2000. They will be our second partners.
Finally, a new administrative unit will be set up within CIDA's Special Programs Branch. Its mandate will be to communicate with and assist groups and individuals wishing to make a contribution by taking part in Africa 2000.
As to the media, I think they should continue to play their essential role by informing the Canadian public of what is happening in Africa.
As far as our policies are concerned, my objective is to ensure that by the end of 1987, we will contribute to the creation of over 2000 small projects directed at meeting the basic needs of African populations.
Canada enthusiastically accepts to make agriculture, reforestation and food security its top priorities among the development projects which it will carry out on that continent.
Such an approach must of necessity involve African women. They make up 80 per cent of the labour force employed in the agricultural sector on that continent. To that effect, I will announce next June a program I feel very strongly about aimed at bringing African women into the mainstream of development.
Also, I intend to set up an advisory group which, on the strength of the expertise of resource people from all areas of activities and all regions of Canada, will advise the Government generally on its policies towards Africa.
May 6, 1986

Finally, Africa 2000 will be an exercise in international consultation. Next May 27-31, will be held in New York City an extraordinary session of the United Nations to deal with the situation in Africa. This session will give us an opportunity to consult our African partners, the other supporting countries and the various multilateral aid agencies. Preparations for this conference are making good progress and active consultations are already taking place. To be both significant and useful, Canada's contribution must be part of a general action plan directed at the deep roots of the economic crisis in Africa. Out of respect for this indispensable consultation process, I will say no more for the time being.
Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members of this House will recognize in operation Africa 2000 the immediate implementation of several recommendations made to us by Hon. David MacDonald. But still more significant, I ask you to see in this first series of measures which I make public today and those which I shall announce in New York City our Government's response to the assistance request it has received from African countries who are determined to assume fully their responsibility for their own development.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: First, Mr. Speaker, 1 want to thank the Minister for providing us with a copy of her statement a few hours earlier than has been the recent or past practice in this House. Her Cabinet colleagues should follow her example, for at least this gave us an opportunity to read her statement and consult the many documents made available to us so as to prepare an appropriate response to her remarks.
There is no need to recall the terrible situation which has been faithfully depicted by the media.
In these circumstances perhaps it would be fitting to commend both Canadian and international media for focusing world-wide attention on the situation and urging the various nations to put pressure on their respective Governments. Regardless of the political regimes under which they live, I think most people were appalled at this plight and decided something had to be done.
Perhaps I might remind the House that, in his own way, former Canadian Minister of Agriculture Eugene Whelan had tried to warn Canadians about future events in Africa. As usual his remarks fell on deaf ears and not a single world organization gave second thoughts to the significance of the advice offered by our former colleague, Mr. Whelan.
As the Minister did on a number of occasions, we must pay homage to Canadians for reacting so generously to the tragic African drought.
Mr. Speaker, we must also praise our volunteer organizations from coast to coast. There are quite a few, of course, but I thought I would single out some of them as an example of what we Canadians can do whenever we want to work together.
Statements by Ministers
Among others, Adopt a Village; The King's College, Halifax; the Steel Worker Humanity Fund; the Caisse populaire du Quebec and the Caisse populaire Desjardins; the CBC. I also have in mind some regional TV stations, more particularly ETV Maritime; the Canadian Jewish Congress; the Save the Children Fund; Canadian Universities Service Overseas; the World Concern Canada Association; the Leger Foundation; Development and Peace.
I have given only a few examples, but I hope that the agencies which I did not mention will consider themselves included since the entire list is contained in the report of the Hon. David MacDonald entitled "No More Famine: Decade for Africa".
The Minister says that she is launching a new program called Africa 2000, and that she was asked not for a ten-year, but for a fifteen-year commitment. I wish to congratulate her because, as I have told her privately, it is a good thing to get politics out of the issues of foreign aid and mutual assistance.
The Minister tells us that she is giving us a specific commitment for the next five years. She is scheduled to appear before the Committee on External Affairs next Thursday. It is not a surprise. I can tell her in advance what kind of questions we would like to ask her. We accept that she has announced an allocation of $160 million in her budget to be spent within the next five years, and she believes, with justification, that the voluntary organizations will come forward with half this amount.
I remember what our colleagues who accepted the invitation of the Hon. David MacDonald told the caucus. I am thinking for instance about the trips to Ethiopia and other parts of Africa made by our colleagues for Humber-Port au Port- St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) and Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador (Mr. Rompkey). These trips were made on two different occasions, and our colleagues gave to the caucus, on whose behalf I am speaking today, a complete report on the terrible tragedy which was still going on, and they also warned us that, when the time came to do what we are doing today, we should not close our eyes on this problem even though we can now feel international world opinion turn to other matters such as terrorism and radioactive fall-out in the Soviet Union.
I therefore want to take this opportunity, Madam Minister and Mr. Speaker, to point out that famine has not disappeared and that we must continue to show a lot of vigilance in these matters.
We know that the Minister has been asked to appoint a special coordinator. She is not replying today, but this is one of the questions that I shall ask her on Thursday. Will she consider following the recommendation which has been supported by all voluntary groups and which was analyzed by Mr. Michel Roy in a remarkable article published in the newspaper La Presse of Saturday, April 26, where we also find articles by Gilles Toupin and Jooneed Khan, and where Mr. Roy says that the Minister must expect some resistance because, while these proposals to help French and English

May 6, 1986
Statements by Ministers
speaking Africa are well received in Canada, there is also a lot of resistance at the higher echelons of the establishment at CIDA and External Affairs.
I have no final opinion to give the Minister as yet. Instead, I would like to wait for the meeting Thursday to see if this would not be the best way to continue the efforts that the Canadian public wants the Government to make to continue in this direction and to improve coordination.
Through my own experience, I can tell the Minister that she will meet a lot of resistance. There is also the Parliamentary Committee chaired by the Hon. Member who changed places yesterday, but who used to sit at the back of the House, the Hon. Member for Guelph (Mr. Winegard), which wants to make a complete study. That is in the Committee's plans for the future. What remains to do is to determine the budget. This represents a major problem since there are only some $2 million available and this would require a budget of $8 million, but I know that the Hon. Member for Guelph, who chairs the Parliamentary Committee on External Affairs and International Trade wants to make a one year study on all foreign aid programs, and I think that this is a good idea.
I would therefore like to tell the Minister not to reject out of hand any proposals which might be made at the conclusion of the study. However, I congratulate her for having responded immediately to the report of the Hon. David MacDonald. I think that it would be appropriate at this time to pay hommage to this man whose moral conscience is so well known to everyone in this House. Those who have come to know him, Mr. Speaker, know that he is a dedicated man, conscious of world problems. He is conscious of development problems, and those who had the wisdom to appoint him as coordinator will have cause to congratulate themselves today, because he has accomplished the extraordinary task of coordinating all those organizations, the public, the media and of course the various levels of Government, federal, provincial and municipal.
He took on a seemingly impossible job. He succeeded because of his talent, and I feel certain that all our voluntary organizations will want us to pay tribute to him today.
Much is expected, Madam Minister, Mr. Speaker, from your working session with the United Nations. You were referring to that conference that will be held at the end of May. There is no need for me to speak on that today. I know the Minister has very definite ideas and I encourage her to proceed in that direction. She has new ideas. I encourage her to even shake up the institutions and the Department she is representing, so that they will follow the direction she wants to impart. I know she is very sensitive to the issue of African women. Well, we will keep very close to the Minister and see how she manages. We will support her if needs be and blame anyone for not helping her with her projects. But I know that when she comes back from New York, we will have an opportunity to question her in committee. I am pointing this out ahead of time to the Chairman of the Committee on External Affairs and International Trade. I am not the External Affairs critic, nor the associate critic-I hate the
word critic-but I am my Party's critic for External Relations and CIDA.
I therefore hope that when the Minister comes back from New York, she will make herself available to the Standing Committee so that we may have an exchange with her. I also wish that the Minister will tell us Thursday, when she comes before the Committee, what she intends to do about all the other proposals. I noted briefly, late last night and this morning, that the Hon. David MacDonald has made 15 recommendations. The Minister has laid emphasis on about seven, eight or nine. I know she has her ideas concerning the others. This morning is not the right time, but I would like her to take notice that Thursday I will probably start questioning her by asking her whether she will be responding to the other recommendations made by the Hon. David MacDonald.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is also my view that when we look at the estimates or when we come back to the study on international development which my colleague for Guelph wants to undertake, we should summon the coordinator, even though his task has ended for the time being, and try to determine whether we should not have some new direction.
I for one support a new direction for CIDA, a new voice for that body, but this is not something that has to be done today. In due course we will do it; we intend to have a discussion with the Minister, and her officials, and reach decisions that hopefully will be acceptable to all Members in this House.
I would therefore like to conclude by thanking once again the Minister for responding within a reasonable time frame to the comments made by the Hon. David MacDonald in his report. I say to her: This is a step in the right direction. There are still many unsettled questions, but in my view we should not make this a partisan issue. It is a matter of approach. The Minister's approach may be different from ours. During discussions in committee, we will see where we agree and where we disagree. However, with the ultimate goal of helping our brothers and sisters in Africa, I feel we should not be partisan about this.
There is so much to be said. I know that my time has now expired, but there is a lot to say about the coordination that has to exist between Governments in Africa and contributing Governments, the encouragement that should be given to the Organization for African Unity so they will realize that together we can do miracles, but that divided there is very little we can do about those huge drought and hunger problems ... because this in fact is the great problem of the 20th and the 21st centuries, Mr. Speaker. Probably the great problem will not be nuclear power, but hunger in the world, and I know that we and the Minister want to address that now.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, like the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), I wish to thank the Minister for her courtesy in
May 6, 1986

providing advance copies of her statement so that we were able to prepare reasonable responses. I would also like to thank her for her attempts over the last several months to involve Members of Parliament from all Parties in on-the-spot trips to see what is happening in Africa. As one who participated in a trip to Ethiopia at the end of the emergency aid program, I want to express my appreciation for that opportunity to see things first-hand.
I want to thank the Minister for her statement which indicates some very welcome steps to provide a continued Canadian response to the long-term problems of development in Africa. Over the last one and one-half years our aid program in Africa has been operating in a crisis situation. The immediate crisis has passed, but the long-term problems remain. We must now move into a long-term strategy.
In responding to the immediate crisis Canadians were greatly helped by the person whom the Government chose as the emergency co-ordinator. David MacDonald and his staff worked effectively with African Government officials as well as with Canadian NGOs to deliver Canadian assistance. Even more important, Mr. Speaker, through some very difficult situations David MacDonald was able to maintain the confidence of the Canadian people in the way in which our aid program was being administered. Canadians were prepared to give generously to African relief programs and they did give generously. However, they did not want to give foolishly in a manner which would simply prop up repressive military Governments or look after the needs of a local elite.
The situation in many African countries is very complex in such areas as economic development, relations with neighbouring countries, and relations with national minorities within their own boundaries. There are often liberation movements which are fighting against a central Government. The issue of human and political rights is very complex in many African countries. It is sometimes easy for us to stand in judgment in those situations. We would be very naive if we imagined for a moment that our aid could be kept Simon-pure in the face of all these problems.
While recognizing that there were problems and that we were not operating in a perfect world, we had confidence that David MacDonald was co-ordinating our aid effort in the best interests of the African people. We thank him for that and we thank the Government for appointing him. In spite of great logistical difficulties with transportation and distribution, we knew that our help was reaching the people who really needed it.
Questions remain about people who badly needed help but did not get it because of internal strife or because of inefficient local administration. These situations must still cause great concern to Canadians and people throughout the world who are concerned about the mass starvation which is taking place in some countries of Africa. These concerns do not invalidate the importance and value of our aid and the efficiency with which it reached people who needed it. We must now move from emergency aid to long-term development assistance. I
Statements by Ministers
think this calls for a more critical stance on the part of all concerned, including the Government through CIDA. I think it will call for a more critical stance on the part of all Members of Parliament as we look at the way in which our long-term aid is going to be administered.
I would like to recognize some of the positive elements in the Minister's statement. First, she recognized the right and responsibility of Africans and African states to establish their own priorities for recovery. This is not just a pro forma statement that the Minister made. It must be the absolute beginning for any intelligent participation by Canada in a development partnership with the continent of Africa. They have to establish their priorities. They have recognized that they have the primary responsibility. It is up to us to support them in those priorities and that responsibility.
Second, I want to congratulate the Minister for the recognition of the need for a long-term development program and for a financial commitment over the next five years. Third, I think it is very important to recognize that her statement talks about a continuing partnership between the Canadian Government and other sectors in designing and delivering development programs and in promoting public awareness of the situation in Africa.
The emergency aid program of the last 18 months showed that non-governmental organizations now have the capability to play a much more active role in administering development assistance. Non-governmental organizations can be particularly effective in monitoring assistance programs in sensitive areas where the local Governments have poor human rights records. NGOs have great potential for the establishment of locally based grass roots development. The 2,000 projects which the Minister spoke of taking place over the next several years will mean a lot of locally based grass roots developments which I think are particularly suited to the capabilities of NGOs.
As the Minister indicated, I support the program to match funds donated by individuals and organizations. This gives Canadians a chance to be directly involved in determining where their support should go. At the same time we should be aware that NGO-delivered assistance cannot be a complete substitute for bilateral assistance, Government to Government. It would then have the effect of undermining the credibility of national Governments. If development assistance should not be used to prop up national Governments, neither should it be used to undermine them. It is important that the use of NGOs be kept in some balance. They should not detract from the right of African states to determine their own development priorities and strategies.
The Minister referred to the general priorities of agriculture, reforestation, and food security. These have been identified by the African states themselves and I think this is something with which we all agree. We look forward to the Minister's announcement of a program designed to integrate

May 6, 1986
Tabling of Documents
women into development programs more than has been in the case in the past. Canada might have a better record than most other nations in this regard, but we have a long way to go before we have accorded women their proper place in development strategy and programs.
In a number of areas the Minister's statement fell short of the recommendations made by David MacDonald in his final report. For example, the statement did not mention Canada's action to ease the staggering $170 billion debt of African countries. Their debt service ratio is expected to be more than 27 per cent of their exports in 1985. Neither does the statement mention any Canadian policies for trade liberalization with African countries. She did indicate that intensive consultations are already under way with African states, other donor countries, and multilateral agencies on a comprehensive plan to come out of the special UN session on Africa at the end of this month. I hope Canada will be announcing at that session some real assistance regarding easement of debt and trade conditions. For Canada to be of real assistance to Africa at this session it has to take a leadership role on those two questions.
The Minister said nothing about MacDonald's recommendation that all African aid programs should be integrated and that there should be greater interdepartmental co-ordination, particularly regarding aid, trade, and finance. Perhaps this is not the occasion for such comprehensive policy announcements, but certainly these recommendations should be taken seriously by the Government and not simply filed on a shelf. I hope we will hear more from the Minister on what her intentions are regarding those recommendations.
Above all else, the Minister's statement has to be criticized for bringing such a modest contribution to a major world problem. David MacDonald said that if we want to prevent mass starvation from happening again, it will require a sense of purpose and a staying power far beyond anything demanded by the famine. On a yearly basis we will be contributing much less than we did in 1984-85. None of this will be new money; it will simply be taken from CIDA's regular budget. In September, 1984, speaking to the 39th Session of the UN General Assembly, right after he had been appointed as Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister said:
Our new Government intends to maintain Canada's commitment to reaching .7 per cent of the GNP by 1990 in official development assistance. Despite serious economic problems at home, we shall not turn our backs on the world's disadvantaged peoples.
Unfortunately, we have turned our back on the world's disadvantaged peoples because we will not reach that goal by 1990. We will reach it only some time in the 21st century. The needs of Africa, the needs of our world, are great. We should not be cutting back our development assistance program, given those needs. The Minister's announcement has to be seen in the framework of that unfortunate budgetary cut-back.
I want to close with a very brief image I have of Ethiopia when I visited there. We saw an orphanage with some 1,000 children gathered under three tents where they were receiving
a rudimentary education. Some of them reached out to us. To me that is a symbol of reaching out for help, reaching for life, reaching out to the developed world for our help to develop so that they can be in control of their lives when they grow up. Food would not be given to them as some kind of charity. They could be proud and complete human beings in a country and continent able to look after their own needs. As far as the Minister's statement leads us to take some first steps towards that goal, I commend her. I urge her to continue to work to develop a program which will reach the goal of .7 per cent of our GNP for development assistance much earlier than the next century.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand that there has been agreement that we would revert at this time to tabling of documents.


TABLING OF ORDER IN COUNCIL RESPECTING ACTING MINISTERS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on tabling of documents. Point of order?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, before the document is tabled I want to draw the first page to your attention. I have absolutely no objection to either of the appendices, Schedule A or Schedule B. However, I wonder whether it is appropriate for what appears on the face page of the document to appear in this form. Paragraph one says:
that in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Prime Minister or in the event of his being unable to perform the functions of his office
(a)	the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Erik Nielsen, or
(b)	in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Deputy Prime Minister-or in the event of his being unable to perform the functions of the office of the Prime Minister, the next Minister named in order of priority in the list of Ministers set out in Schedule A-
In order to conform with the responsibilities of each cabinet Minister, I wonder whether it would not be more accurate to say in both documents that the designation concurring the Hon. Erik Nielsen for parliamentary purposes be the position that he holds, that of Minister of National Defence. What it should say is:
(a)	the Minister of National Defence, the Honourable Erik Nielsen, or
(b)	in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Minister of National Defence, the Honourable Erik Nielsen or in the event of his being unable to perform the functions of the office-
The reason I raise that is because the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) is a cabinet Minister by virtue of his being Minister of National Defence. There is no such function as Deputy Prime Minister within our parliamentary system. That is the reason, when the Cabinet was first struck in 1984,
May 6, 1986

that the Hon. Erik Nielsen was designated as the President of the Privy Council. He could then hold Cabinet rank and perform the function of Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Since that is the case, I suggest that this document is flawed and therefore cannot be appended in its present form. It should be amended in order properly to establish the designation of the Ministers named in order of precedence for the purpose of acting in the absence of the Prime Minister. For example, Schedule A is absolutely correct because it sets out the persons who are to act for the Prime Minister in his absence or in the event of his being unable to perform the functions of his office. Schedule B sets out Ministers by Ministry, which Minister performs which function, and who will act in a given Minister's place. I therefore suggest that pages 1, 2 and 3 be altered to conform with the proper designations of the various Ministers and the functions they perform.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest for the second day in a row to the presentation by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain. I know that he was not present on the occasions when my colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence, was sworn into his portfolio. I was there. I heard him being sworn in by the representative of the Governor General. Whether the Hon. Member likes it or not, the Minister of National Defence is Deputy Prime Minister and was sworn into that particular responsibility in Cabinet.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We have two matters to deal with. First I would like to remind the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) that as far as the Chair is concerned the document has, in fact, been tabled. The second matter is whether it should be an appendix to Hansard, and for that I need unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent to have the document appended to Hansard?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For document referred to above, see Appendix "A".]


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Patrick Crofton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on National Defence, in both official languages. If the House gives it consent I intend to move concurrence in this report later this day.
___________________________12975
Motions


CONCURRENCE IN FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Patrick Dermott Crofton: Mr. Speaker, if the House gives it consent, I move, seconded by Mr. Lewis, that the first report of the Standing Committee on National Defence presented to the House earlier this day be concurred in.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, if it has been an agreement concerning the travel of the committee, then I agree.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Private Members' Business
January 13, 1986-Mr. Malepart-That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of intervening in the matter of the industrial decline of the eastern sector of Montreal by designating the said area (Zone 4), and by granting contracts to Versatile-Vickers, Bombardier, C.S.W. and other endangered industries.
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: If we could stay with motions, Mr. Speaker, I have two items I would like to deal with. The first is with respect to Private Members' Business today. There have been discussions with the other Parties and I think you would find there is unanimous consent for the following draft order to be put to the House:
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, the item listed as number one on the Order of Precedence of Private Members' Business in today's Order Paper and Notices shall be placed at the bottom of the said Order of Precedence for the next sitting day; and
Provided that the House shall continue with the business before it at five o'clock p.m. this day until the ordinary daily hour of adjournment.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this is the third occasion that this House has had to deal with an incident of this nature where we cannot proceed with Private Members' hour. Before giving my consent I want to make sure the House understands we are not creating any precedent by accepting that motion today. I want a statement from the Government that there are no precedents being set. Second, I know, and the Government knows, we are working on a more acceptable permanent solution. I take it the Government would admit today that there are no precedents being set and that we are proceeding in our goal of reaching an amiable and acceptable formula for replacement of that hour, which is a Private Members' hour, not Government time. I want to make sure it is understood that it is the only hour of the day where Private Members of this House have time to discuss Bills and motions of their liking.

May 6, 1986
Motions


Philip Derek Lewis: If I may, Mr. Speaker, this is, in fact, the third time that we have presented this draft motion to the House. In doing so we have tried to protect the position in the Order Paper of one member from the New Democratic Party and two members from the Liberal Party. We are simply offering this forward as a mechanism to protect the position of those Private Members on the first occasion that their Bills or motions have come up for debate.
I would say to the House that the House Leaders are discussing this. I see the House Leader for the New Democratic Party in the House, and I think he would confirm we are discussing an acceptable way to assist the business of the House so business will go forward and the Private Members' position will be protected. Those conversations are ongoing and we hope to have a solution to present to the House very soon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) have the unanimous consent of the House to move his motion?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I do want to just say a word in support of the Parliamentary Secretary, the Government House Leader. The problem has arisen as a result of the change in the rules whereby Members did not have sufficient notice to prepare themselves for the piece of business that they had proposed to be dealt with under Private Members' Business.
We have, for the better part of the last ten days, been looking at options that would allow us to protect a Member's right to utilize the slot allocated to him or her, but recognizing that a Member will, from time to time, as parliamentary business will dictate or constituency business will dictate, find it impossible to be here at that particular hour on that day.
What we are looking at is giving each Member the option of deferring their day once during the course of the entire proceedings. That would mean they would stand down their opportunity to debate on that day and would carry that day through the entire process until the next time it comes up.
In all fairness, the only option to doing that is that that Member's item will be dropped from the list entirely. I make that point as clearly as I can that, if we cannot agree to this procedure today, which will I think be the last time we have to do it ad hoc, it will result in that Member's business being dropped entirely from the Private Members' roster. The end result of that will be that until ten such items have dropped, that on each of the days on which that piece of business would be called it will revert to Government Orders, which means we would lose the opportunity to have a Private Members' debate.
I would ask my colleagues on this one occasion to give the unanimous consent required in order to proceed, as was suggested, and I can assure all Members of the House that we will work today and tomorrow to try to have a House order
that we believe will be satisfactory to the best interests of all of the Private Members.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: In refusing to approve this third incident unanimously I did so by asking the Government at the beginning of my remarks to make a statement that, indeed, we were not creating a precedent. That is my only point. I do not want to discuss the draft order, or anything else pertaining to negotiations at hand. I am just asking the Government to understand that Private Members' Hour is Private Members' Hour and should remain as such. I am asking for the Government's concurrence with my objective that we tell Members that there is no precedent here and that the Government will not use that hour for its business by pushing around any Members supporting its Party. That can be done at this time.
If the Speaker allowed me, I could go on and on and speak for half an hour on the dangers which we may face in the House because of the new rules and their application.
If the Government will give me the undertaking that it understands there are no precedents being set at this time- even though it is the third time, as the Parliamentary Secretary said-I would agree to give unanimous consent. Otherwise, it will be no.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I will not take up too much time. First, I believe the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) has pointed out that I thought we were having discussions with the House Leader of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Vanier's (Mr. Gauthier) Party to find a solution to this matter that was satisfactory to all Parties.
I had cleared this proposal and this way of operating with his House Leader. It is not a question of attempting to do something unilaterally.
Second, I do not want to usurp the role of the Chair, but I think it is a fair statement-and the Hon. Member will know and acknowledge this because he is a very keen student of parliamentary procedure-of the practices and rulings of the Chair in the history of this Chamber that anything done in the House by unanimous consent is not deemed to be a precedent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Lewis) have the unanimous consent of the House to introduce his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
May 6, 1986

Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have a further housekeeping motion which has been discussed with both opposition Parties. I think you will find that there is unanimous consent to the following draft order:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or Special Order of this House, the list of permanent members of the several Standing Committees adopted on Thursday, March 13, 1986, be altered as follows:
1.	substitute Mr. Boudria for Mr. Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe) on the
Standing Committee on Agriculture;
2.	substitute Mr. Keeper for Mr. Deans on the Standing Committee on
Government Operations;
3.	substitute Mr. Lesick for Mr. Della Noce on the Standing Committee on
Multiculturalism; and
4.	Substitute Mr. Gauthier for Mr. Boudria on the Standing Joint
Committee on Official Languages;
And that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint their Honours thereof.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council have the unamimous consent of the House to introduce his motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will revert to introduction of Bills.


INCOME TAX ACT
Hon. Barbara McDougall (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-109, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, be read the first time and be printed.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Order Paper Question
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the following question will be answered today: No. 544.


DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-REGULATIONS FOR PARCEL SHIPMENTS
Mr. Greenaway: Are there written regulations to which employees of the Department of External Affairs must adhere when (a) sending parcels from the Department by Canada Post or by courier service (6) receiving parcels at the Department from Canada Post, courier service and/or diplomatic bag and, if so, what were the regulations (i) prior to (ii) since, September 1,1985?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): (a) Yes. (b) Yes.
(i) and (ii) The regulations described herewith are not specific to parcels but cover the handling of all categories of mail (letters, parcels, etc.) received or despatched through Canada Post, private courier or diplomatic facilities. These regulations were implemented prior to September 1, 1985, and are still valid.
The regulations for part (a) can be found in (i) Section 11 entitled "Parcel Post (International)" of the Canada Postal Guide Part I, (ii) Chapter 2, Section 2.6 entitled "Transmission of Classified Information" found in the Departmental Manual of Security Instructions, and (iii) in guidelines and instructions included in an Administrative Notice circulated once a year to all divisions in the Department.
Regulations relevant to part (b) can be found in (i) Section
5.2.1	entitled "Mail Opening Desk" of the departmental Manual of Procedures which reads "Except for mail marked "Personal" "To be Opened by Addressee Only", "Confidential-Personnel Information", which is forwarded unopened to the addressees, all other mail is opened in the departmental mail room, sorted and delivered to the records unit serving the division and in (ii) guidelines and instructions included in administrative notice circulated once a year to all divisions in the Department.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to inform the House that, because of ministerial statements, Government Orders will be extended by 38 minutes, beginning at one o'clock.

May 6, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, May 5, 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.
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about the general principles involved in Established Programs Financing before I speak in favour of the Bill that is before us. It is a question that has disturbed me for some time.
As a federal Member and a Member of a provincial or territorial Legislature, I had the opportunity to attend interprovincial and federal-provincial meetings of Ministers responsible for health and social services. Over the years the federal Government has invaded several areas that, under the Constitution of Canada, are directly within provincial jurisdiction and reponsibility. These include health, education, and social services.
At some point in time the federal Government offered the provinces a deal that they could not refuse, by offering to pay half of the costs providing that the provinces rendered these services. No province could refuse that type of suggestion.
The federal Government has been unable to keep the funds flowing since these generous offers were made and very often it was the provinces that were left holding the bag when the funds dried up. This happened on several occasions under several Governments.
Very often it is the provinces that actually provide these services and pay for such things as social security, and the building and maintenance of hospitals. I have a certain amount of sympathy with the position in which the provinces find themselves and I understand why they are hesitant about getting into these deals in the first place.
In addition, the federal Government has moved in and taken up tax room in order to pay for its share of the funding. This means that there is not enough room left for a province to levy the taxes to get its share.
I was pleased when a Bill, similar to this, was introduced in 1977 by a Liberal Government of the day. That Government had to tighten its belt because it found itself in the same position as we are in today. One of the steps it took was to transfer tax points from the federal Government to the provincial Governments. At the same time as it was cutting down on certain transfer payments to the provinces, it gave the
provinces an ability to raise more money with this transfer of tax points. I thought that was a good idea.
Let me deal with Bill C-96. It is always difficult to stand up in the House of Commons or anywhere else and defend cuts in health services, although it is not really a cut but a reduction in the amount of expenditures that would have been incurred.


James Douglas Manly: It is a cut. You were right the first time.


Dave Nickerson: It is the same with respect to education. However, we must face the facts. We are fully aware of the financial state of the Government of Canada, with the deficit we inherited from the previous Government. It is absolutely necessary that we get the finances of Canada under control. Therefore, we must take our responsibilities as a Government very seriously.
It is forced upon us to alter schemes such as the EPF. A structural imbalance had been built into the system and, if we were to continue under the existing formula, the deficit would become increasingly larger. Since we could not sustain that in the long run, the Government has had to take this initiative in order to regain control.
As I stressed before, transfer payments to the provinces for health services and education will continue to rise. There is no doubt about that. It is not a cut, as one of my colleagues from the New Democratic Party shouted out a little while ago. In fact these transfer payments will increase, and will continue to increase under the new formula.


Mr. Mayer:: Substantially.


Dave Nickerson: Substantially so, although perhaps not as substantially as they would have under the old untenable system. We have to look at the federal Government's ability to pay vis-a-vis the ability to pay of the provincial Governments.
If one takes a look at the accounts of the federal or the provincial Governments, one will see that, because of the huge debt upon which we must pay interest as a federal Government, our ability to finance new expenditures is very much reduced as a result of what we have inherited. The huge deficit will continue for some time. We do not think we will really get it under control or stabilized until about 1992 under the projections of the Minister of Finance. But if we take the provinces as a group, we will find that their deficits are much less in proportion. They are running much closer to a balanced Budget. Therefore, their ability to take up some of the slack which might have been left is much greater than that of the federal Government at this time.
I want to argue in favour of the formula. I admit it is rather a complex formula in the Bill. It deals with two groups of GNP increases. I must say that I find it rather difficult to interpret. However, when we look at the results of the formula we see that under the circumstances it is as fair as it can possibly be. Probably more important, it is sustainable over
May 6, 1986

many, many years. We do not have to make further changes. We will not have to do as the Liberals did and bring in a new Bill every year to change the formula once again. It is sustainable. Both the federal and provincial Governments will be able to plan for years ahead knowing what these transfer payments are going to be. It certainly is my intention, and the intention of my colleagues, to vote in favour of this necessary legislation.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to comment briefly on what was said by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). I think he should have continued his speech in the same vein as he started, since at first he pointed out that he agreed with the formula negotiated in 1976 and adopted in the 1977-82 fiscal arrangements, because the formula included transfers of tax points for all provinces. He seemed to like that approach.
However, if we go all the way down the line, and I wish we did, the federal Government would no longer have to make any transfer payments because by that time the provinces would have enough tax points to be able to finance the activities under their jurisdiction.
I therefore fail to see how anyone can agree with the formula for transferring tax points and at the same time support Bill C-96, which is a cut back because it makes cuts in a formula that was established on the basis of both tax points and transfer payments. If we only had tax points, it would be impossible for the federal Government to cut tax points already transferred. So I don't really understand the logic of what he was saying.
1 would also like to point out that as far as new legislation to amend the formula is concerned, I suppose he was referring to Bills adopted by the Governments that preceded the Conservatives. All I can say is that Bill C-96 is changing the rules in the middle of the game. The fiscal arrangements on transfer payments were supposed to expire on March 31, 1987, and now this Bill changes the rules halfway through the game, which means that the provinces' budgeting for financing postsecondary education and health care programs has just been wiped out by a unilateral decision by the Government.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I am going to vote against adopting this Bill on second reading, and I would even go so far as to say that the House should refuse to consider this Bill in its present form.
In fact all these cutbacks under Bill C-96 will severely test the financial stability of most Canadian provinces. One may claim that payments will continue to increase, Mr. Speaker, but the formula had been established and the provinces have prepared their estimates on the basis of the gross National Product growth. But henceforth it will be geared to the GNP less 2 per cent, which means that between now and 1991-92 the accumulated losses of the provinces will reach $8 billion and they will have to learn to live with the deficit which will be passed on to them by the federal Government.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Since 1976-77, Mr. Speaker, transfers to the provinces have been expressed as a percentage of the Gross National Product. On the basis of the GNP, these transfer payments have been stable. Ever since 1976 the transfer payments have remained stable and ranged from 5 to 5.75 per cent of the Gross National Product as a whole. Therefore the rising deficit as a ratio of the Gross National product cannot be traced back to these transfer payments, but rather to expenditures other than debt servicing which have gone up between 12 and 15 per cent in relation to the Gross National Product. In other words, if any adjustment has to be made it should not involve transfer payments to the provinces.
Second, why is the Government in such a hurry? In his November 1984 economic statement the Minister had indicated there would be no changes in transfer payments until the end of the financial agreements. Now he steers a new course, he is reneging on his commitment. Why re-open the 1982-87 agreements before their expiry date, in the middle of the game as hockey fans like to say? It amounts to betraying the provinces and leaving them to hold the deficit bag. Perhaps the Minister of Finance wants to say he has solved his deficit problem and pat himself on the back, but in fact he will quite simply have transferred his problem to the provinces. This is reminescent of Pontius Pilate's approach-to wash one's hands off the whole thing and let others worry about the problem.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, even the Nielsen Report refers to this issue in the study on health. I have here the English version of the Nielsen Report and I quote from page 13:

However, based on this review, the study team concludes that there are no compelling program reasons to reduce transfer payments. Thus, the announced intent of the federal Government to reduce the amount of transfer payments by $6 billion over the next five years is seen strictly as a necessary fiscal measure. The team fears, however, that this action by the federal government could substantially reduce its role in Canada's health care system. The percentage of federal government contributions to provincial health programs is currently at approximately 40 per cent. The team found no evidence that would indicate that our health system is significantly "overfunded" or "underfunded"-rather a balance overall appears to have been achieved at the present time.

Mr. Speaker, even the Nielsen Report indicated that there was no need for cuts, adding that there were no evidence that health programs were either overfinanced or underfinanced.
There was, therefore, according to the Nielsen Report, a certain balance. On this basis, the federal Government's decision to reduce its transfer payments to provinces will mean, in the final analysis, that the provinces will have to assume the deficit.
For some provinces, Bill C-96 will come on top of a previous legislation known as Bill C-39. Quebec will be more affected than other provinces due to the decision made last year concerning the equalization formula.
Last year, Mr. Speaker, when she introduced Bill C-39 the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall) stated, and I quote: "The highest protection, the 95 per cent floor, is given

May 6, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
to those provinces which are not as strong fiscally as others and ensures that payments will decline by no more than 5 per cent from one year to the next. What the Government is doing in this Bill is giving Manitoba, Quebec and Nova Scotia the benefit of this 95 per cent floor for the purpose of making a lump sum payment which will assist them in the remaining two years of the current program."
That is what the Minister said in the House to reassure Hon. Members that Quebec would not receive less than 95 per cent of the equalization payments it had received the previous year.
The Hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had said something similar on April 2, and I quote from page 3627 of the official record of the Debates:
I said that we would be equitable in applying a 95 per cent floor to the three provinces which would not be receiving the same amount of equalization in the current fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker, we had received firm commitments from two Ministers; yet, failing again to keep its word, the Government has refused to give to the province of Quebec what the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall) had promised here in the House, thereby forcing the Quebec Minister of Finance to raise taxes only to foot the bill which the Conservative Government has turned over to him.
In reply to a question directed to her in the House on Friday, May 2, the Minister of State (Finance) stated: "I think the statement made last night by the Minister of Finance for Quebec reflects some misunderstanding of the formula which was arrived at last year. All the provinces are treated equally and Quebec received half the equalization payments. But because the Quebec economy is doing so much better-"
Mr. Speaker, such a statement from a Minister of this Conservative Government is quite revealing of how poorly she understands the way in which the equalization formula should apply. And I just cannot understand how it is that no Conservative Member representing Quebec has exerted pressures on the Government to force it to fullfill its commitment and explain to the Minister what the equalization formula really means.
The equalization formula to share our country's wealth is a contractual agreement and it is even included in the preambule of our Constitution. I am not asking any special favours for a province, but I simply want the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) to keep the solemn commitment they both made before all the Members of this House when trying to convince them to accept Bill C-39.
Mr. Speaker, this decision of the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance represents a betrayal for Quebec and I hope that the Conservative Members will use all their weight in caucus to call these two ministers to order and ensure that they keep their promise.
Mr. Speaker, this situation is so serious that, before resuming my seat, I would like to move the following motion:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:
"This House refuse to continue the consideration of this Bill, the purpose of which is to unilaterally reduce federal payments to the provinces for postsecondary education and health services which are essential."


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kempling):: We will reserve judgment on this and advise the Hon. Member later. Debate.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand that you want to reserve judgment on this motion. When are we going to receive a judgment on it? I do not know how many speakers-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kempling):: The Chair will rule on this very shortly.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few points about Bill C-96, points which I think relate to Government policy more than anything else. First, the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) made a case for getting rid of the deficit by taking away or reducing two of the main economic factors in Canada, the need for a well educated and a healthy population. He suggested that by reducing the amount of money expended on health and education we could be rid of the deficit. That is kind of a negative approach.
There is no doubt that the policy of the Government as expressed in this particular Bill and in the Nielsen task force report is fairly specific. First, it is to eliminate any program that costs anything, or to pass that cost on to another Government. That is exactly what the Government is going to do. In this particular case the Government has decided to pass the costs of health care and of education either to the provincial Governments or to the students who are seeking education. If the Government does not do one of those two things, it will do a third thing. It will redefine the Government's responsibilities in order to bring the costs down to the absolute minimum.
If one were to study the parts of the Nielsen task force report which have already been put into policy, one would find that those three basic approaches are followed. The Government either eliminates a program, it passes the program on to someone else to pay for or it redefines the Government's responsibilities so that the program will not cost so much.
Second, the Government has proclaimed itself an open Government and has said that it is going to be consultative. In this particular case, perhaps the definition of consultation has been changed. The provincial Governments keep telling us that the actions taken by the federal Government in this particular case were unilateral. The federal Government proclaimed that it took this action only after consulting with the provincial Governments. The provincial Governments suggest that no agreement was reached and that they were told at the end of the federal-provincial conference that this action was going to be taken. They did not agree, and simply informing the
May 6, 1986

provinces does not seem to be the kind of consultation which was expected. There was no discussion, no recognition of the effects of this action, and no allowance for other actions which the provincial Governments might take rather than this action.
Third, the Government says that there will be no great disparities or inequities caused by this particular legislation. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Government knows that the impact of the cut in the rate of growth is that the amount of money that is available for health and postsecondary education will be reduced. The Government seems to refuse to recognize that the provinces will have to make up those costs which continue to increase.
The provincial Governments will have to find a source of income to replace the income which is being withheld by the federal Government. The provinces that have the money will probably not be affected greatly, but there are have-not provinces in Canada. There are provinces which do not have new sources of money and have a very difficult time remaining in a balanced position. In fact, in the last few years, some of the provinces have even gone into deficit positions. They will be affected and there will be inequalities in health care and education in those provinces.
We will be moving away from one of the great decisions that Canada has taken, and that is that everyone must have an equal opportunity. Every person who lives in Canada should have an equal opportunity to receive quality education. Sometimes we wondered about the Liberal Government's commitment to equality but the Conservative Government does not leave us to wonder at all. There is no doubt in anyone's mind that it has an elitist philosophy when it comes to education. It feels that not the most intelligent but the richest should be given the opportunity for quality education.
The Conservatives claim to believe that health care should be available and accessible to everyone. The key is whether they actually believe that it should be available to everyone. Obviously they do not believe it. Government Members are suggesting that it should be available to everyone who has the ability to pay. Also they say that no one should worry about health care not being available and that the access will be the same. However, access to quality health care is already deteriorating, and a reduction in the amount of money available each year will have the effect of further reducing quality health care in some provinces. Many areas will not receive the kinds of health service which they received in the past.
The Government has had a continuing tendency to forget that it made promises. In the 1984 election campaign, members of the Progressive Conservative Party stated that they were committed to sustaining the then current federal financial commitment according to the formula set out in the 1977 agreement. Also they stated that they believed that the financing of post-secondary education was an important priority for both levels of Government. That was a concise and
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
clear statement made by Conservative Party Members before the 1984 election, yet we see action on the part of the Government to back off from that promise, to forget that it was ever made, and to reduce the money which will be paid for postsecondary education. Government Members will say that they are only paying out less, but they promised to accept the 1977 formula which had a larger increase than the one they are allowing this year.
Health is one of those sacred trusts. It is amazing how the phrase "sacred trust" has become almost synonymous with broken promises. I will not spend a great deal of time on this matter because it has been well documented that the Government promised to allow a continuation of quality health care. However, it should be recognized that the promise of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) of no reduction until 1987 was made after the election, to the provincial Governments and provincial Ministers at a federal-provincial conference. He promised to continue the funding. The suggestion of a reduction seemed innocuous at the time because it was so far into the future. Instead, he brought forward legislation which will mean that it will start to occur in 1986. The Government also suggested that it would do this in order to cut the deficit.
As I suggested earlier, we are being treated with an insight on how the Conservative Government thinks. It intends to cut the deficit on the backs of low-income and middle-income Canadians, on the backs of the "have-not" provinces, and at the expense of quality education and health care.
Let us look at what the Government has done to the tax structure. The taxes for high-income earners have been reduced, whereas the taxes for low-income earners have been increased. Now we see the same philosophy being applied to education. If education and health care require increases, no funds will be available for that purpose.
The Government needs to look at this piece of legislation again and bring it back in a form which would allow Canadians to continue to receive the kind of quality education and health care to which they are accustomed.


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before you make your ruling, Sir, in respect of the proposed amendment of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), I should like to submit the following. As I understand his amendment, the effect would be to negate entirely the main second reading motion. It does not amend the motion in respect of content, intent, or time. Therefore, my contention would be that the course of action the Hon. Member and his colleagues should take would be to vote against the main motion. For the various reasons cited, his amendment would be out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kempling):: I am about to rule on this matter. I was awaiting the return of the Hon. Member. The amendment is in order; it is a reasoned amendment.
At this point in time I will rule on the amendment of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), seconded

May 6, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
by the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano). As I said at the outset, the amendment is in order and it is a reasoned amendment. The amendment is to leave out all the words after the word "that" and to substitute therefor that this House refuses to continue study of the Bill, the principle of which consists of a unilateral reduction of the payments by the federal Government to the provinces for postsecondary education and health services which are essential.
I ask for the indulgence of Hon. Members. The amendment was put to the Chair in French, and I am not quite that competent in French. Therefore, it is not an official translation, but the French version will apply, and that is the sense of the amendment.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner) has been going across the country to speak with and listen to university students, professors, and administrators. He is profoundly concerned about post-secondary education. As the Leader of the Liberal Party, he has been alerting the country to the need for a national approach to post-secondary education. He is insisting that we need to find a way in which to get the provinces and the federal Government to co-operate and to ensure that the moneys transferred by the federal Government to the provinces indeed are spent on education, unlike what happened, for example, in the Province of British Columbia where a large amount of the funds was diverted to other purposes than post-secondary education.
My leader wants to ensure that federal incentives to the provinces are arranged for research and development and that the promised targets for research and development are reached. He also wants to ensure that attention is given to strengthening centres of excellence, that business and school co-operation is encouraged, and that we increase our effectiveness in spending. That is the program of the Leader of the Official Opposition. That is what the Government is not doing for us. It is not offering leadership. It is simply cutting back on its promises and even on its agreements, as the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) so eloquently and so excellently pointed out.
Bill C-96 is a bad Bill. Simply put, the Tories in Ottawa have decided unilaterally to reduce or cut the expected and promised transfer payments by the Ottawa Government to the provinces for health and for education. They did not ask the provinces; they told the provinces. They did this despite the protestations of the provinces. This is a very serious matter, Mr. Speaker. Leadership is needed at a time like this. The crisis taking place in post-secondary education is a major one.
If we look at the reports and the observations of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, we find this:
Enrolment pressures have continued to mount in the past year. Even though the total 18-24 age group from which university enrolments are traditionally
drawn is declining, the proportion of this group undertaking university studies continues to grow.
Even though numbers are decreasing in the population, the number of young people in that age group seeking a university education is increasing. The statement goes on:
Across Canada, in 1985-86, full-time university enrolments increased by 1.5 per cent and part-time enrolments by 2.7 per cent. The percentage increase would no doubt have been higher if some universities had not been compelled to impose over-all limits on enrolments.
The list of difficulties facing universities grows. The unacceptably high faculty-student ratios, the outdated research equipment in some of our laboratories, the continuing concern relative to the brain drain of some of brightest and best researchers, the aging of our professoriate, the weakened library collections and the physical plants in disrepair have all been well documented. The universities do not seek sympathy or futher analysis. They seek and expect solutions.
Solutions require leadership. The problem unfortunately is that the Government is not giving leadership on how to deal with the question of post-secondary education and research. Rather it is simply dealing with budgets and unilaterally announcing a cut in the expected transfer payments that were supposed to have been made this year, thus breaking agreements with the provinces and cutting funds for future years. That is not leadership, Mr. Speaker. It is a betrayal of promises and it is a lack of responsibility at a time when a grave crisis faces the nation.
As this applies to general financing, it also applies and strikes universities in the area of research, which is such an important part of the life of universities. The Government not only through this Bill is assailing the foundation of the future of the universities and colleages but it is also, through other actions, complementing this, not providing the kind of leadership promised in the area of research.
Speaking on behalf of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, the President of the Manitoba University, Arnold Naimark, noted that the latest move by the federal Government relating to guaranteed funding for the three granting councils responsible for most of the research in Canada will mean they will end up with less money in real terms than at present. This is an absolutely staggering result of the latest decision of the Conservative Government, this time in the realm of research. In the words of Mr. Naimark himself:

"We have examined the announcement of the Federal Government and it is obvious that the guaranteed support of the Federal Government to council activities will not be increased during the next five years. Even with an inflation rate of 4 per cent, in 1990-91, the purchasing power of the councils' budgets will in fact be 18 per cent lower than it is now."

With the decimation of our post-secondary universities on the one hand, and of the money they need for research on the other hand, which is not in this Bill, we have a double assault on our post-secondary educational system. This is devastating because we all know the future of Canada's economy depends
May 6, 1986

upon a very healthy and growing post-secondary educational system.
Mr. Don Savage, General Secretary of the Canadian Association of University Teachers, said that if we are to progress economically as a nation we will need more not fewer university graduates in science, engineering, and business management. If we are to survive in a competitive and frequently hostile world, we will have to know the cultures, history, politics and languages of our friends, our competitors, and our enemies. If we are to make any mark in the history of the world, all of this effort must be suffused with the ideals of our civilization, its history, its philosophy, and its literature. Our political leaders, said Mr. Savage, seem incapable of finding a way to fund the universities we need. That is an assessment which I am afraid is appearing to be all too true when we look at Bill C-96.
We certainly hope the Government will rethink its position on this, go back and fulfil the promises it made to the electorate on the matter of maintaining the level of at least the 1977 funding formula. We hope the Government will look at the promises to and agreement it made for this past year with the provinces, and at least fulfil them. It would be wise for the Government to do these things.
Everyone knows colleges and universities are in deep trouble right across the country. For that matter, since this Bill also deals with the medical situation as well as transfers to the provinces for the post-secondary educational fields, the Government should stop starving hospitals and medical centres. The Government must stop passing the buck to the provinces. It must give leadership and keep the promises it made in the last election.
I appeal to the Government and to the Members of Parliament who belong to the Government caucus, to drop Bill C-96 or vastly modify it and keep their pledge to the future of our country. Stop selling us out. Do not let us and our young people become slaves of other nations, hewers of wood and drawers of water, because we have failed to give to our young people the knowledge and the skills and the research to do the job. Give us the educational system we need.
If the Government will renegotiate and discuss with the provinces what can be done to work out co-operatively the future of post-secondary education, that will be a greater contribution by far than by merely passing Bills that cut back on the Government's own problems of the deficit here in Ottawa. Let us work out in dialogue with the provinces how we might co-operatively work together to guarantee a future for your young people. Let us not, together with the provinces, pass the buck on to the young people. Let us be brave and take on the responsibility of working together.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to make some comments regarding Bill C-96, a Bill which has to be identified as a Bill of betrayal to the young people of Canada, to the universities and colleges, vocational schools and educational institutes of
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Canada. It is a betrayal of the health care system and the people of Canada.
I recall a number of occasions when members of the Government opposite and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) said that the Government was going to commit itself to improving the health care and post-secondary educational systems of Canada. Bill C-96 cuts back on increases which should be going to our post-secondary education institutions and to health care across the country. Regardless of how you cut it, that is what this Bill is all about. Due to this Bill, in the next five years $6 billion which would normally have gone to the provinces for health care and post-secondary education will not be going to them.
In this fiscal year alone $318.9 million which should have been transferred to the provinces for post-secondary education will not be transferred. That is what the Department of Finance has told us and I thank it for laying out, in a very clear fashion, what the cut-backs will mean to the provinces. Next year that amount will escalate to $680 million. The following year over $1 billion will not be transferred to the provinces. Over the next five years about $6 billion will not be transferred to the provinces.
I do not know what kind of sign that gives the people of Canada. I do not know what kind of signal members of the Government are sending out to Canadians. The signal I receive is that the Government believes it is spending too much on colleges, universities, and institutes and is, therefore, going to cut back on its spending. The Government says that it cannot afford such expenditures. If the truth were to be known, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is a Member in the House of Commons who would not say that the most important natural resource in our country is our people, especially the young people who wish to be trained and educated to take their rightful role in our society in this and future decades. That, however, will not be the result of this particular Bill. Things will not improve.
I was in my constituency on the weekend. The headline in the local newspaper in Kamloops, British Columbia, read: "Major Cuts from College Funding". The article indicates that there will be a cut of $500,000 to Caribou College in Kamloops, British Columbia. Over the last four years that college has experienced a 16 per cent increase in enrolment. Yet it had its base budget cut by 11 per cent over that same period. It has more students but less money. The news this year is that a further $.5 million will be cut from its budget.
Materials used in education and health care lead the inflationary syndrome. Their cost tends to increase faster than the general rate of inflation. When the ravages of inflation are taken into consideration, the cuts to education and health care are even greater than the figures indicate.
There is something peculiar happening in the country as a result of this legislation. When this Bill was introduced by the

May 6, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) not long ago, it was done so with no real consultation about what impact it would have on the people in the provinces of Canada. It was unilaterally announced that the Government would be cutting back on post-secondary education. When the Prime Minister spoke of a new co-operative federalism, a new approach to doing business with the provinces, and a new openness of Government, we did not anticipate that it meant unilateral decisions which would have a very negative impact on the people of Canada, particularly in terms of the ability of provinces to provide health care and post-secondary education.
This is round two of this process. Not long ago when the Liberals were governing Canada they introduced cut-backs in post-secondary education as part of their six and five program. At the time we felt that that was an inappropriate move. My colleagues in the New Democratic Party, to the last individual, stood up and said that that was not the kind of action a country should be taking if it hoped to remain competitive and play its rightful role as a western industrialized nation. However, that is what the Liberals decided to do.
At that time the present Minister of Finance stood up in the House and spoke out against that. I do not have sufficient time to quote him, but he spoke vociferously against that action. The present chairman of the finance committee, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), almost had a heart attack. We thought he would not make it through his 20-minute speech because he was so worked up about what this would do to the young people of Canada. The present Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) stood up in his flashy and flamboyant way. We thought he was going to cross the aisle and start punching the then Minister of Finance for suggesting that the 6-and 5-program should apply to post-secondary education. The Hon. Members for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby) and Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) spoke against the legislation.
The present Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) from Newfoundland said:
Mr. Speaker, this is a deplorable piece of legislation because the principle of it is one of betrayal. The Bill betrays the provinces of Canada, the provincial Governments of Canada and betrays the universities of Canada. It betrays postsecondary institutions of Canada. It betrays the young people of Canada and illustrates rank hypocrisy in the actions of the Government.
He is now doing exactly the same thing. Then he went on about the hypocrisy and betrayal of it all. Now the tables are reversed except that the Government is not proposing a program to last for only two years; this is to be permanent. It will continue year after year. We say that it will cost us $6 billion over the next five years. We can extend that and say that it will cost us $8 billion over the next eight years, and so on.
The Government is saying that it does not plan to provide equal opportunities for the young people of Canada relative to other countries. Most western industrialized nations are investing heavily in post-secondary education and research and development. They are training their young people and retraining their workers. They are providing for education in
universities and colleges to lead to reseach and development for the production of a variety of products and commodities. Canada stands alone in saying that it will not be providing those increases like everyone else. Canada will not be participating in educating its people as are the other countries with which we compete.
I do not know why the House is not filled with Members of Parliament from British Columbia standing in their places saying that they will not accept this. The Province of British Columbia stands alone in that it fails to pass along the entire amount of money it receives from the federal Government for post-secondary education. A report issued last year indicates that post-secondary education in British Columbia is not financed on a shared basis by the provincial and federal Governments. It is funded by the federal Government exclusively. That provincial Government provides virtually none of its own money for post-secondary education. It is simply not correct to believe that the provincial Government will make up the difference now that the federal Government is cutting back on funding to British Columbia. The track record indicates very clearly that if the shortfall is made up it will be done so by the students through tuition fees.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this Bill must be stopped. It cannot be allowed to continue. I hope that Members opposite will look at this reasoned amendment and vote in support of it.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I attended a meeting of a committee of which Your Honour is also a member, the Joint Committee on Canada's International Relations. We were examining a very important series of recommendations which we hope to table in this House before the end of May. They dealt with the Green Paper which the Government presented called Competition and Security. Our discussions over the last couple of days focused on the ways and means by which Canada can become a competitive nation in the very tough and turbulent world of international trade. As we went over the submissions we received from across Canada during the past several months, there was one constant and consistent theme. That theme was that the fundamental strength of Canada as a world trader in the future will be based on the brainpower and knowledge of its citizens. Our future will depend upon our capacity to tL nk, innovate and develop new products.
It is therefore ironic that I am here debating a Bill which runs totally counter to that theme. It contradicts, refutes and negates that theme. It will have the effect of totally eroding the skils of Canadians. It will lower our ability to be creative and innovative. It reduces our potential to develop the brains, abilities and skills of Canadians in our universities and other institutions of higher learning. How can the Government operate on two tracks going in opposite directions? Members of the Government stand here day after day talking about their commitment to economic development. They say we must become one of the great international traders. At the same
May 6, 1986

time they are pulling the rug out from underneath the ability of Canadians to supply that trading competition.
I visited the universities in my riding over the past several weeks to talk to students, faculty and administrators about present conditions in our universities. Their maintenance budgets, which go towards keeping the halls clean and maintaining equipment at acceptable standards, have not been increased for four or five years. The research budgets, which go towards providing new equipment and books, the hiring of research assistants and many other things, have been cut back virtually to zero. The university in my riding is one of the major universities in the country. In the past it has provided an incredible number of skilled people who have occupied important positions throughout Canada. We are now shortchanging that university.
As a country we have always believed that one of the major commitments we should make is that of broadening educational opportunities. Higher education should not be available just for the children of upper middle-class or upper-class families. The real strength of Canada has been that we have widened the availability of higher education to make it available to the working class of people, the poor and minority groups. Yet this university has had to put a freeze on the number of student positions. It has had to develop a system of pre-selection, and the high quality courses that are in demand are increasingly limited to fewer and fewer students. The students least able to compete for those positions are those from a disadvantaged background.
The fear expressed to me by some university personnel is that we are creating a class system in our institutions of higher learning. We are closing the door of opportunity for minority groups and the children of disadvantaged families. There are no longer the resources available to give them the start they need. Is that something that we as a country want to accomplish? That may fit in with the Tory philosophy. That may be the attitude of the Conservative Party. I recall a statement by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) about a year ago that the philosophy of his Budget was to make sure that the rich got richer, or words to that effect.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: We are creating the conditions for that to happen by denying the opportunity for higher learning to a broad base of Canadians. That is the end result of this Bill. Never mind talking about transfers to the provinces and inequities in those areas. We are, in real terms, closing the door, closing off opportunity. We are destroying the capacity of this country to utilize fully the skills and abilities of its citizens. That is the end result of this legislation. That is the charge that must be made. The Government is deliberately and consciously fighting against years of progress, which allowed this country to broaden opportunity, because it has a different philosophy and approach. This is no accident. It is not happening because of a Minister's mistake, although God
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
knows there are enough of those. It is being done as a conscious matter of policy by this Government.
All of this is increasingly compounded by the same kind of closing down of opportunities for quality health care. When you increase your defence budget by 40 per cent over the next five years and your health care budget by only 10 per cent, which will not even begin to cover inflationary increases, then obviously something has to suffer. The hospitals in my city are cutting back on their outreach programs which are there to provide preventive care and deal specifically with many of the lifestyle health problems faced by people in our lower-income areas. They deal with our native communities and problems in the inner city core areas. They are losing their ability to try new programs which will reach out to the disadvantaged. They will be unable to experiment with the kind of preventive programs which will enable us eventually to save money on health care because they prevent people from becoming sick.
Those are the human consequences of this legislation. That is the end result of this stupid, callous and uncaring act by this Government. It is saying once again to large number of Canadians that Government does not have a responsibility to meet their needs. Government does not have the obligation to share the wealth of this country in an equitable way. It is saying that it will increasingly restrict privileges and opportunities to a smaller and smaller class of Canadians. That is the human result of this legislation and that is why it must be opposed.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak once more on this legislation. I hope I will have other opportunities to speak on it, because the longer we keep discussing it, the longer we will prevent the new situation from setting in. It is important to delay this legislation because it really is destructive of Canadian policy.
Mr. Speaker, the impact of the legislation now before us is to reduce transfer payments from the federal Government to provincial Governments for post-secondary education and health services. A few Conservative Members have risen in this debate, expressing the view that this Government is not reducing health and post-secondary education payments to provinces.
But the fact is this Government has reduced expenditures. Let me take for instance Manitoba, where planned expenditures in those areas will be reduced by $235 million over the period to 1990. Mr. Speaker, that is a large amount of money, and that cut has significant implications for the Province of Manitoba.
In order to illustrate that reduction, I will now give more readily understandable examples. For a four person family in Manitoba, the reduction will amount to more than $1,000 over a full year. The reduction of federal expenditures on health services and education will reduce federal support by $1,000 a year for each Manitoba family. As another example, let me

May 6, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
say this reduction will be greater than the overall Manitoba expenditures on universities and community colleges. Mr. Speaker, that is a truly significant reduction.
Many Conservatives have told us how important it was to reduce the deficit, how important it was to have control over public expenditures, and nobody disagrees with that on this side of the House. But how should we go about reducing the deficit? When the Conservatives were fighting to get elected, they said they would reduce the deficit by cutting down on squandering. Mr. Speaker, that was a good approach. But why is the Government not following that approach now, that it is in power?
Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of priorities. Why reduce education and health expenditures while increasing those on armaments, national defence? It is important that we have armed forces, but why increase defence expenditures when we reduce education and health support?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a look at this Government's approach and its implications in the area of health care. It is true that health costs are increasing considerably. But how can we solve the problem while serving ordinary people? That is the question.
And, of course, the Conservatives' approach is to cut down on expenditures now. The problem with that is we are going to miss the opportunity to invest in new ways of delivering health services which in the long run could reduce health costs.
Mr. Speaker, it is important in my view for ordinary people to remember that our health system is more efficient and less expensive than the American one. With the public Medicare system we have here in this country, the cost of health care takes a smaller part of the GNP than in the United States, and with better results. In this country, families do not risk losing all their savings when one of their members is ill. But in the United States, a family can be ruined because of one serious illness.
Mr. Speaker, the public health system in this country is more efficient than if it were run by the private sector, and it is endangered by these Government reductions. By cutting down federal assistance to health care we are running the risk of destroying the system in the long run. The approach we advocate would be to invest in health care so as to be able to provide still more effective programs and, with time, costs would go down.
Mr. Speaker, we have to come to grips with real problems in the health sector because costs are rising, which can only mean less money available for post-secondary education. This country needs a sound post-secondary education system because our economy is heavily dependent on well educated people . . . one more minute, Mr. Speaker!
To sum up, Mr. Speaker, all I am saying is that reducing education and health expenditures is a short-term approach, and we must look much farther into the future if we want to serve ordinary Canadians and lead our country to prosperity.
We must be concerned about the quality and efficiency of services. This will save us money in the long run.


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words in connection with Bill C-96, which is an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977. I have listened very carefully this morning to the comments of the Opposition indicating, as they have done time and time again, that this legislation is aimed at reducing the contribution the federal Government is making to both post-secondary school education and to health care services in this country.
I think it is important for the people of this country, and the Opposition, for that matter, to put this in its proper perspective. We are well aware that this legislation, far from decreasing the total quantum amount of money that will flow to the provinces, will in fact increase the quantity of money that will be going to the provinces this year, next year and in the years to come. In fact, as a result of this legislation the transfer payments in relation to post-secondary school education and health care will continue to grow at a rate of about 5 per cent annually. If inflation continues to be in the vicinity of 4 per cent as it has for the last two years, that will mean that the transfer payments in connection with health and postsecondary education will increase at an even greater rate than inflation.
That is not to suggest for one minute that this legislation is only increasing the quantity. Hon. Members have quite rightly pointed out that the formula that was in place previously is being altered and modified and, as a result of that modification, there will be a downward adjustment in the total amount of money that would have flowed, might have flowed, could have flowed to the provincial Government.


Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Should have flowed.


Alan Redway: The amount that has already flowed to the provinces is not being reduced. In fact, as Hon. Members are well aware, that amount is even being increased. It is estimated that at the rate provided by this formula, the total amount will increase by more than $90 billion by the year 1990-91. There is no question about a decrease in payments; in fact there is an increase in payments. That is quite clear.
If post-secondary educational establishments and the health care systems do not cut their cloth according to inflation, there will be a requirement to provide them with more money from somewhere. Obviously, it will not come from the federal Government, so it will have to come from somewhere else. Perhaps it will come from the provincial Governments which, according to the Constitution, have the primary responsibility for these expenditures. They always have and always will have that jurisdiction as long as the Constitution remains as it is.
May 6, 1986

The provinces have guarded that right very carefully and very jealously over many years.
I can understand the concern of the provincial Governments that in the future they may not get as much money from the federal Government for these purposes as they had hoped. However, I am sure that when the provincial Governments search their souls they will understand what we are doing. In the last 10 to 20 years, provincial Governments have been using this same approach with boards of education, municipalities and all those to whom they pay transfer payments. In fact, as a former municipal politician, I am well aware that long before the federal Government started to consider the possibility of not giving the provincial Government quite as much as it expected in future years, the provincial Governments were cutting back on the amounts not only that they had promised to municipalities and school boards in the past but actually reducing the amount. I recall that in my municipality in 1970, some 80 per cent of the total cost of educating children was paid for out of provincial transfer payments. Now it is down to less than 40 per cent.
The provincial Governments know what is happening. They have been taking similar action for many years and they know what it is like to shift expenses and costs to a lower level of Government.
Of course, the concern is not with the provincial Governments but with the taxpayers themselves. The taxpayers of this country pay taxes to municipal Governments, school boards, provincial Governments and the federal Government. Everyone in this Chamber and throughout the country must pay taxes, and we know what it is like to have to shoulder that burden of paying for all those things that make up the vast number of taxes which we must pay.
The problem we are facing is that the expenditures that Governments have undertaken in this country are out of whack with the amount of revenue that is flowing in. Somehow, we must get that under control. The impression I am getting is that citizens are getting tired and fed up with paying increased taxes and are looking for some sort of cut-back on expenditures.
Where will we cut back on those expenditures? The New Democratic Party Member from Winnipeg who just spoke said that we were going to cut back on waste and expenditures. That is quite true. That is what we have been doing. However, every time we look to cut back on an expenditure that we believe might be wasteful-


Cyril Keeper: Health?


Alan Redway: We find an objection from the Hon. Members.


Cyril Keeper: Is medicare a waste?


Alan Redway: When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), in his November 1984 Economic Statement, set out a number
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
of reductions in areas of expenditure that the Government felt was wasteful, we heard objections from the Opposition. I am not suggesting for a minute that health or post-secondary education are wasteful expenditures. The Hon. Member also knows that we are not decreasing the amount of money going to those areas, although it may not be the amount that the provinces thought we might spend. However, I am suggesting it is quite clear that every time the Government suggests a reduction in wasteful expenditures there are objections from the Opposition, whether it is the New Democratic Party or the Official Opposition. There is not one expenditure that they believe is wasteful. That is why we are facing the difficult problem of how we will cut our cloth, balance the budgets and pay for the expenditures undertaken by all levels of Government.
I believe that the people of this country have come to the limit of their tether as far as increases in taxes are concerned and, therefore, we are rapidly approaching the time when not only the Government but the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party will have to look carefully at which Government expenditures we will have to cut. That is the tale that will be told in the future.
We have heard many platitudes and many wonderful statements from the Opposition, but we have not had any concrete statements as to what they would cut. It is time for them to put up or shut up.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate, although I am also disappointed to have to speak to such a sad topic.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the previous speaker going on about how difficult it was for the federal Government to make ends meet and hurry in trying to pass the buck to the provinces which, he said, perhaps they were not doing enough and perhaps should seek other sources of income, and he kept saying that the Government of Canada had to reduce its deficit. In other words, through this Bill and the speeches of Government Members, they would have us believe that by using payments for the provinces, the provinces are the ones who will suffer in the final instance, but what they forget is who will really be affected by the cutbacks we are discussing today.
This Government, after making a formal commitment that neither post-secondary education nor health care would be tempered with, this Government had the nerve to present this Bill and make cutbacks amounting to nearly $6 billion between now and 1990-91, and if we take 1986 to 1992, we are talking about more than $8 billion in these two sectors.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we Quebecers should be particularly concerned about finding out what effect this will have on our province. In fact, since the Quebec Minister of Finance brought down his budget and told us that the Government would have to forego $66 million in equalization payments for the year ending on March 31, and that it would lose another $82 million over the current year, in addition to this cutback

May 6, 1986
which represents $82.3 million in 1986-87 for Quebec, $174.9 million in 1987-88 for Quebec, and so forth-I think we can say that this amounts to an unilateral attack on a province and on all provinces, but if we look at ours in particular, we see two groups that have very few lines of defence. I am referring to two basically important groups, namely, the students who are our future, and the sick, who unfortunately cannot avoid being sick.
Mr. Speaker, these are major cutbacks because the Government looked only at the figures without thinking about the consequences of its action. What will these cutbacks mean for the universities? It will mean a proportionately reduced access for the poorer members of our society and an automatic increase in tuition fees, which will also have an impact on access. I trust that this was not done for philosophical reasons by this Government, but the result will be that the rich will have greater access to post-secondary education and that nothing will be done to reduce social disparities. Mr. Speaker, our universities have been strongly affected these last few years by a whole series of cutbacks.
The Government says that it has to cutback the fat of programs, but I can tell the Government Members that there is no fat to cut back in our universities. The didactic equipment of our universities is getting older and the faculties can no longer afford to replace it. In all scientific fields, such as engineering, our faculties have enormous difficulty in providing technological training at the same rate as technology progresses because their budget no longer allows them to purchase new equipment.
The same thing is happening in the hospitals. You would have to be insensitive to believe that the hospitals have too much money. If we look at the situation in Quebec, we find that many hospitals now have substantial deficits. It is certainly not by cutting back the transfers in these two areas that we can provide more equality and improve health services or education. These are certainly two areas where the Governments should make some improvements. It is obvious that the amounts allocated to health care are reduced once more, those affected will be the aged. It is obvious that pathological research will be affected. Yet, this Government had made a commitment to increase research and development and provide more money in the priority health care areas. What has happened to those nice promises?
As concerns post-secondary education, the Government did not consult the provinces or anyone else, but decided to make savage cutbacks while saying: It is essential to increase occupational training and to ensure that our young people will be better trained for tomorrow's jobs. Where will they get this training, Mr. Speaker? Will they have to go to private schools in the United States? This is one thing that worries me in this debate.
I can hear the Conservatives laugh. They have defective memories. They should remember all the speeches they made at the time of the 6 and 5 program. And yet, the 6 and 5 per cent program, the purpose of which was to reduce inflation,
was an unqualified success. Sitting on the other side of the House at the time, I could hear Members of the Conservative Party getting incensed and calling it treason. What are they doing now? What they called treason two years ago they call now financial responsibility. What a change in attitude! What a change in vocabulary!
I hope therefore that the debate on the amendment which my colleague the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) has moved to Bill C-96 will provide an opportunity for the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall), among others, to recognize her mistake and realize frankly that the action taken by the Government and by herself has been premature, that their decision was unilateral and that it will have desastrous consequences on both the health care and secondary education areas which they had promised to improve.
One need only consider the proportion of the Gross National Product which the various Governments allocate to Canadian universities and colleges to realize that it went down from 1.35 per cent in 1977-78 to 1.24 per cent in 1984-85. This proportion will keep going down because of the Bill before us. In a changing society like ours where education becomes the stumbling block of the whole system, I feel that by deciding to sacrifice this sector, the Government is demonstrating its very short-sightedness. Mr. Speaker, the same applies to health care. We know that Canadians are demanding improved health care, but the Government again is showing its insensibility.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kempling):: The Hon. Member has approximately two minutes remaining. If he wishes to use them, he can do so when the House resumes its sitting.
It being 1.38 p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1.38 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, we have another example of the Government's bankrupt and pork-barrel policies on regional development and increased employment opportunities. On March 25 at a news conference announcing the new $l-coin, the Minister of Supply and
May 6, 1986

Services (Mr. La Salle) stated that Inco in Sudbury would produce the nickel blanks, Sherritt Gordon would do the finishing and the Royal Mint in Winnipeg would do the stamping.
The Minister now says that while Inco Ltd. will receive a sole-source contract for the nickel to be used in the production of the new $l-coin, the actual blanks will be both produced and finished by Sherritt Gordon. Consequently, Sudbury will not share equally in the production of that new $l-coin as expressed earlier.
The Minister stated that Inco could in future years bid on the production of the blanks. If it can do so in the future, why not now? Why the unilateral decision to give the initial and largest run to Sherritt Gordon without tender? I submit that the action represents a double-cross to the community of Sudbury and the Minister should reverse his decision immediately.



FISHERIES


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the Government the presence in Ottawa of representatives of fishermen's groups from across Canada. They form the first ever national fishermen's lobby group in Canadian history. They are here because they fear what the Government might do, and particularly what the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) intends to do regarding changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act.
The fishermen fear that political and economic forces beyond their control have moved to throw the UI system back into the dark ages. They are here with specific proposals for job-creation schemes and they have requested a meeting with the Minister of Employment and Immigration so that they can speak to her directly.
Fishermen on both coasts form a vital part of this nation's economy. Economic survival is a constant worry for every fisherman in this country. Most recent figures indicate that almost all fishermen in Canada depend on unemployment insurance to survive through the winter months. In July 1985, 1,093 fishermen were collecting benefits, but in February, 1986, 29,847 were in need of benefits. They want the Government to realize that fishermen oppose any move to strip away their eligibility for unemployment insurance.


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



THE TOBACCO INDUSTRY


Mr. Gilbert Chartrand (Verdun-Saint-Paul):: Mr. Speaker, smokers are being subjected to a systematic persecution which disregards the personal freedoms which have always been the hallmark of our country. For example, we learned recently that Air Canada officials have jumped on the bandwagon and will ban smoking on some of their scheduled flights. The fact that our national carrier has so meekly yielded under pressure is a great disappointment to me.
Non-smokers advocacy groups are entitled to their opinion, but they should give more consideration to tobacco growers and people who work in that industry.
Most of the 750 workers of Imperial Tobacco in Montreal are residents of my constituency of Verdun-Saint-Paul. I met with these workers, they need their jobs to support their families, and they are increasingly worried about their future. One has to wonder whether the pressure groups against smokers have alternatives to propose, or whether they could not care less about the consequences of their campaign.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians and certainly those living in Alberta are largely free-enterprising people. While most Albertans abhor socialism, some NDPers could be elected through the back door in the Alberta election if the free enterprisers spread their votes among three or four free-enterprise candidates instead of supporting a PC candidate who, with Premier Don Getty, a great free enterpriser in his own right, will govern under free-enterprise policies.
After all, it was free enterprise that gave the people of this country one of the highest standards of living in the world. It was not socialism. It was free enterprise that developed our agriculture, oil and gas, lumber, communications and transportation systems in Canada. It was not the socialists. A new PC Government in Alberta, by working with the PC Government in Ottawa, can bring Canada into a new era of prosperity. Viva free enterprise. Viva the PC Party. Viva a better, greater and nobler Alberta and Canada!

May 6, 1986



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, what impact will the freer trade negotiations with the United States have on the environment? So far the Government has not dealt with that question. Now that negotiations are under way, it is urgent that the potential environmental impacts of freer trade be assessed.
For instance, under a freer trade agreement there could be increased pressure from Canadian companies, and particularly from U.S. multinationals, to reduce the cost of environmental protection and resource management programs. In addition, wherever Government-industry agreements have been reached on subsidies or tax incentives for pollution abatement or resource enhancement, challenges could be likely under a freer trade agreement. This could seriously hinder federal and provincial initiatives on controlling point sources of pollution, hazardous waste management, reforestation, fisheries management, waste water treatment, air quality, et cetera.
It is still not too late to prepare an environmental impact assessment of freer trade, and I urge the Government to do so.



DISASTERS


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, ever since the initial news of the nuclear accident at Chernobyl was pried out of reluctant Soviet authorities by Sweden and Finland, the western world's repeated requests for an exact account of the disaster, detailed information concerning the well-being of the affected population, and a comprehensive, internationally verifiable investigation of the whole event have all met with the usual Soviet benign silence.
Such complacency with regard to the health and welfare of the Soviet people, such lack of sensitivity toward anxious relatives and friends, and such complete disregard for world health and co-operation are blatant violations of the Helsinki Accord and strain the boundaries of common, human decency.
On behalf of the residents of Kitchener, especially those of eastern European descent, I urge the Canadian Government to continue its initiatives begun at Tokyo and to press the Soviet Union to disclose fully the nature and extent of this accident to its own people, to the peoples of eastern Europe, and to the rest of the world-


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



NEWSPAPER ARTICLE AND EDITORIAL ON PORT OF CHURCHILL

Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in The Globe and Mail this morning, which is self-proclaimed as Canada's national newspaper, there was an editorial attacking our northern Port of Churchill. This followed and presumably drew its information from an equally one-sided article in yesterday's edition of The Globe and Mail.
The article quoted Thomas Van Dusen, the anti-Churchill press spokesman of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazan-kowski), other groups which have historically opposed Churchill, and Nielsen task force members who are in open competition with the Port of Churchill, a fact which is not mentioned in the article.
The question of Churchill's value to the western economy will never be answered seriously on that basis. Mr. Van Dusen, in his effort to downgrade the Port, did not assist in accurate and informed public debate. He is quoted as saying: "We're stuck with Churchill". Hopefully the people of Churchill and the Minister of Transport are not stuck with Mr. Van Dusen.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, throughout the many weeks of debate in the House over the sale of de Havilland to Boeing, the outcry from the opposition benches gave the impression that the days were numbered for the aviation plant. From this hue and cry many were led to believe that once the sale took place the writing was on the wall and the demise of the plant was an indisputable fact. Yet it was recently announced by Richard Albrecht, Chairman of Boeing Canada Limited, that plans for expansion are under way.
Boeing announced that it will expand the Dash-8 commuter aircraft line and will infuse $25 million into new equipment and installations. In addition, the go-ahead has been given for a detailed design of the stretch Dash-8. The company is also scouting up buyers for the submarine hunting Dash-8. The order book for the Dash-8 holds orders for more than 100 aircraft.
Does this sound like the dying gasp of a company about to go belly up? I would answer with a resounding no. The sale of de Havilland has infused new life into the company. As long as the aviation plant continues to expand and grow, not only are current jobs protected but new ones will result.
May 6, 1986



THE ECONOMY


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Since we have assumed power, Mr. Speaker, the economic health of Canada has been continuously improving.
Statistics Canada, the Conference Board, the Bank of Canada, the Economic Council, as well as several other agencies, associations and organizations are foreseeing a sustained growth and a promising future under a Conservative Government.
But they are not the only ones to realize the effectiveness of our policies and the validity of our initiatives in the economic, agricultural, cultural and social areas.
During a Liberal meeting held last week in Yukon, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) stated, and 1 quote: "There is going to be a stable and constant growth, such as we are enjoying now, for a very long period of time."
Mr. Speaker, I congragulate the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior for his honesty and I invite his colleagues to follow suit and admit quite candidly-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! Sixty seconds!



RAILWAYS


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, a Canadian Transport Commission report shows that most derailments in Canada are track and equipment related. Despite this fact, CN and CP continue to reduce the number of employees who are responsible for roadway and equipment maintenance. The report notes as well that both railways have been reducing managerial and supervisory staff less rapidly than the workforce as a whole.
There is a great deal wrong with Canada's railway systems. Obviously one problem is that we have too many paper pushers and not enough rail employees looking after roadbeds, tracks and rolling stock. Railroaders in my riding have been telling me that for years.
At last, Sir, the Canadian Transport Commission has caught up with common knowledge.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, last weekend two self-proclaimed agricultural experts, Mel Hurtig, an Edmonton book publisher, and Marion Dewar, the former NDP Mayor of Ottawa, visited Winnipeg to warn prairie farmers about the alleged evils of freer trade. Curiously, many Liberals and New Democrats, today's doom and gloom reactionaries, are so afraid of change that they do not want even to consider how we might benefit from greater access to an export market ten times the size of our own.
On a more positive note, the research firm of Deloitte, Haskins and Sells in work done for the Prairie Wheat Pools have concluded that a freer trade agreement would mean an extra $60 million a year in revenue for prairie farmers. Without such an agreement, they comment, prairie farmers may well lose some of their existing markets due to growing American protectionism.
Given such a choice, prairie farmers will readily opt for freer trade talks despite what doomsayers like Mel Hurtig and Marion Dewar have to say.




Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, when it comes to Government statements on agriculture it is becoming increasingly difficult to tell the grain from the chaff.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) is fond of listing hundreds of initiatives which he claims the Government has introduced in the past year and a half. Most farmers in Canada are hard pressed to name but a few of those initiatives which are of any real benefit and for which the Government can claim any real credit.
When the Minister and his Government have an opportunity to show by their actions that they do care about the plight of Canadian farmers, the Minister usually reverts to reciting the same old litany. Words, are a very poor substitute for action when it comes to assisting our farmers through some very difficult times.
On the issue of free trade, the Minister of Agriculture has been unsuccessful in his lobby with the trade Minister in gaining for agriculture a full voice on the free trade advisory council. The Minister seems to agree that farmer's interests are best served by being included with the food processing and beverage industry in Canada. That body is often-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds. The Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake.
12992

May 6, 1986
House of Commons POLITICAL PARTIES



PRIVATIZATION OF CROWN CORPORATIONS BY MANITOBA NDP GOVERNMENT

Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, over the course of the last year or so the Government has been criticized on a number of occasions by members of the NDP for having confidence in Canadian entrepreneurs and we have been criticized for returning Crown corporations to the private sector when they no longer served a public purpose.
The NDP is now silent on this matter. Why? Their siblings in Manitoba have seen the light, Mr. Speaker. Manitoba socialists are turning to the free enterprise system. The newly elected Manitoba Government has seen the wisdom of turning to Conservative policies and it has now started a privatization program of its own.
After years and years of mismanagement and drain on the public purse, the Manitoba Government has decided to sell Flyer Industries. The NDP has finally seen the logic of leaving the management and operation of businesses to business people. Now, if the NDP can only get its financing right.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, recently the Liberal Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) addressed universality and the serious problem of the national debt. He was abandoned by his caucus colleages.
I would like to remind his colleagues that several other prominent Liberals of days gone by have echoed similar concerns. Marc Lalonde once stated:
There are no free lunches. We can't plan on the basis that there's a growing federal pie from which everybody can get an increased share.
The Hon. Member for St. Henri-Westmount (Mr. Johnston) said:
Social programs have to be married to the economic requirements of the country so people use those programs to help themselves.
John Munro went so far as to say:
The Government is wasting millions of dollars by sending monthly pension cheques to wealthy senior citizens and baby bonuses to families who do not need the money. Such funds should be redirected to help the most needy.
These are wise words. It is a pity that the Liberals did not heed them while in power. Now they are trying to stifle the lone voice of realism. Shame!



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF PARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION FROM CAMEROON

Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! I should like to mention the presence in our Gallery today of a parliamentary delegation from Cameroon, headed by Mr. Theodore Mayi-Matip, First Vice President of the National Assembly.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Yesterday we learned that the Korean company, Hyundai, had received a $300 million break. At the same time the Minister's company received a $3 million loan from a bank associated with Hyundai. We now know that Magna International has received grants totalling over $62 million and that the Minister's company has received a $2.6 million interest-free loan.
Surely the Minister must understand how this chain of circumstances fundamentally questions his credibility as a Minister. Under these dubious circumstances will he not voluntarily agree to appear before the Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure and put the matters of Hyundai and Magna before it in order that he can be properly examined by a committee of his peers?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in his question the Hon. Member referred to various transactions including certain fundings for Magna International. I am rather surprised that he did not make it clear that on August 27, 1984, just before the last election, his Government signed a memorandum of understanding with Magna anticipating the types of funding which he now criticizes me for simply implementing on behalf of the Government of Canada.


Raymond Garneau: Big deal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, we are fully aware of the agreement which was signed by the previous Government. That is an even more important reason why he should not have allowed the dealings of his company to be associated with a company which was receiving grants from the Government of Canada. He should have known better.
May 6, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST THAT MINISTER PROVIDE COMMITTEE WITH DOCUMENTS
Lloyd Axworthy: Will the Minister now voluntarily agree to appear before that committee and, as a minimum, provide that committee with the proper documents and information so that it can make its decision on Thursday with the proper information which the Government has obviously had in its possession but, up until now, has refused to reveal to the public?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member has not forgotten, and I know that Hon. Members of the House will find it most interesting to learn, that under the previous Government from 1982 to 1984 the aggregate contribution of various types to Magna totalled approximately $30 million. The sharing ratio was 50 per cent on the projects concerned. The present Government gave approximately $18.1 million at an average sharing ratio of approximately 18 per cent. The fact is that Magna got much less beneficial deals from the present Government than from the former Government.


Mr. Broadbent:: That's beside the point.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister not understand the difference between a Government giving an industrial grant to a company and the spouse of a Cabinet Minister negotiating a loan with a company which is receiving a benefit from that company? If he does not understand that difference, it is the best reason of all for the Minister to resign.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, that last intervention by the Hon. Member was not a question. It was a statement which has been answered by myself on behalf of the Government time and time again last week and this week. The answer remains the same.


LIMITS OF COMMITMENT BY HYUNDAI
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion about the Hyundai assembly plant in Quebec. First, I would like to say that, on this side of the House, we are happy that Hyundai has decided to invest in Quebec and to
Oral Questions
create jobs. However, what we do not understand is how and why the Minister could release Hyundai from the legal obligation to purchase for about $300 million a year in Canada. Why did the Minister give up on the 10,000 to 15,000 jobs which could have been created in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada if he had not released Hyundai from this legal obligation?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member takes some satisfaction at least from the fact that a plant is being built by Hyundai in the Province of Quebec. Perhaps he is unaware of the fact that in the negotiations leading up to Hyundai agreeing to build the plant in Quebec we indicated we would modify the export/import ratios on condition that a plant was built in Canada. This would be more fully spelled out in a memorandum of understanding. In short, the Hon. Member is overlooking the fact that as an integral part of achieving Hyundai's investment in Canada, which ended up in Quebec, we agreed to modify the export/import ratio they had previously agreed to.
[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF AGREEMENTS
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. President, if this new agreement with Hyundai is as good, especially for Quebec, as the Minister indicated yesterday, would he be willing to table in this House both agreements, the old one and the new one signed with Hyundai, so that Canadians and Quebecers can judge for themselves whether the new agreement is an improvement over the old one as the Minister has indicated, or if it is worse because its effectiveness has been amputated as I believe?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member refers to the old agreement and the new agreement. Judging from questions yesterday and today, members of the Official Opposition clearly do not understand the so-called old agreement.


Mr. Crosbie:: They never have.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Perhaps they have been unfortunately misled by various newspaper stories, but they have been bandying the figure of $300 million about as the amount of exports, which my Department tells me has absolutely no foundation whatsoever. In short, there is misrepresentation when there is some suggestion that the old agreement would have produced $300 million worth of exports. That is simply not true.

May 6, 1986
Oral Questions THE ADMINISTRATION


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister and follows up on new news of decisions reached by his Department which have benefited Magna Corporation. He has said that he was unaware of the nature of the unusual loan his wife managed to negotiate until the public became aware of it last week. He now knows the nature of that loan to his wife, the connection with the Magna Corporation, and he is continuing to make decisions which benefit that company to the tune of millions of dollars. Does he not think that he should clear the air, so that the Government is viewed as one of integrity, and submit his resignation from his portfolio now?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, that is clearly a matter falling within my responsibility in the absence of the Prime Minister.


Mr. Ouellet:: Then resign.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Bye, bye, Erik.


Erik Nielsen: The Member is making statements concerning the responsibility of the Prime Minister to ensure compliance with the Code of Conduct by public office holders. It is the same kind of question that was asked repeatedly for four days last week, yesterday and today. The responsibility for compliance-


Mr. Speaker:: 
RESPONSIBILITIES OF MINISTERS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will direct the question then to the Deputy Prime Minister since he decided to answer this. In the Prime Minister's letter about the conflicts of interest he said the following:
I wish it to be understood clearly by all Ministers that they have an individual responsibility to prevent conflicts of interest, including those that might arise out of the activities of their spouses.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister, considering that the Prime Minister said that in a letter to all the Ministers, and we now know the present Minister under question is making decisions amounting to millions of dollars a year which benefit a company that has a special deal with his wife, does he not think that Minister should not now resign?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there is no difference between that question and the questions that were asked throughout four days last week. The response is still the same. In October, 1984, the Minister had divested himself of all of his assets, and by trust indenture placed them in a blind trust. That is a matter of public record which the hon. gentleman can discover for himself simply by speaking
with the ADRG. Compliance has been had with the code of conduct.


ETHICS-POSSIBLE RESIGNATION OF MINISTER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is this: Does the Minister agree that this matter affects the integrity not only of this Government, but also of the Canadian Parliament?
If such is the case, does the Deputy Prime Minister agree that the Minister should resign immediately?


Erik Nielsen: No, I do not
agree that the Minister should resign.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Industry Minister indicated he was not aware of the connection between the Hanil Bank, Hyundai, and his own personal business interests. He now knows the blind trust now has 20-20 vision. In view of the knowledge he now has can the Minister, at the very least, give us his assurance that he will not participate in any discussions or decisions affecting Hyundai?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as the Deputy Prime Minister has indicated, my assets have been placed in a blind trust, and I feel that there is absolutely no reason why I cannot carry on in my present role. I would add that the Hyundai deal, some of the attributes of which I indicated earlier today and yesterday, I think has been a fine deal, a job-creation deal for Quebec and for all of Canada.


THE ADMINISTRATION
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Minister is refusing to remove himself from any further allegations of conflict of interest. Now that the blind trust is no longer blind, will he give this House his assurance that he will not participate in any future decisions that might affect Hyundai in order to avoid any further allegations of a conflict of interest? Will he do that?
May 6, 1986


Erik Nielsen: Given the nature of the questioning we have been hearing for six days, four last week and two this week, I am not encouraged whatsoever to believe that anyone in this Government will be free from allegations made by that Hon. Member and the rest of them.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Yesterday he said that he had no knowledge of any ultimatum made by Hyundai that they could not or would not build in Quebec and also live up to their commitment to a $300 million purchase agreement. Norman Gibbons, VicePresident of Hyundai, said that the decision to waive the $300 million buy Canadian clause was made by the Minister personally, and that Hyundai would not have been able to build in Canada and also meet such a commitment. Can the Minister explain the apparent conflict?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member can well understand, I cannot speak for the representative of the Hyundai motor car company to whom he refers. All I can tell him is that our Department informs us that the $300 million figure, that the Hon. Member and others are bandying around, has absolutely no foundation. The number of cars that were imported last year would not have risen under the new agreement or the old agreement to anything like a $300 million export figure going from Canada. It is a pure fantasy.


John Edward Broadbent: What is the figure?


MINISTER'S ACTIONS
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, did the Minister personally waive the commitment that was undertaken by Hyundai to purchase in Canada to the extent of whatever amount he cares to attribute to it? If so, did he do this with the knowledge that Hyundai would not be prepared to build either in Quebec or Newmarket with that agreement in place?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, again, with all due respect to the Hon. Member, he has missed the point.


Ian Deans: It is not that I make the point, it is that you answer it.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Let him answer.
Oral Questions


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The point is that Hyundai-


Ian Deans: Did you know?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -in an over-all-


Ian Deans: Did you make the decision?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -in an over-all-


Ian Deans: I do not have to listen to that garbage.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Ian Deans: Answer the question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain will come to order.


An Hon. Member:: Give him a chance.


Ian Deans: He knows what the question is.


John Carnell Crosbie: Why don't you resign now, Ian?


Ian Deans: The question is simple. Did he make the decision or did he not?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Carnell Crosbie: Shirley Carr pulled the chain again.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain and the Minister of Justice will come to order now.


John V. Nunziata: Name him.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.


THE CABINET
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and relates to the code of behaviour concerning conflicts of interest.
In light of the points raised in the House today, what does the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion intend to do to abide by code directive No. 16 which applies to Ministers and prescribes "-avoidance of-activities or situations that place public office holders in a real or potential conflict of interest... "?

May 6, 1986
Oral Questions
Now then, what specific measure does the Minister intend to take, other than those he has taken so far and which have proven to be unsatisfactory?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, there is no difference between that question and the others that have been asked throughout six days now. It is the responsibility of the Prime Minister to ensure that the code of conduct is complied with by each and every Minister of the Crown. In the case of the Minister concerned, 1 have reassured the House time and time again that that compliance has been had and the public records in the ADRG's office will display that, if the Hon. Member takes the trouble to examine them.


BENEFIT SECTION REQUIREMENT
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question concerns Section 35 of the code. Even if the Minister did not know before, now that we have told him and he knows that he benefited from a company doing business with his Department, has he or does he intend to file a declaration under the benefit Section 35 of the code which compels him to file when he has received a benefit from a company doing business with his Government? Has he done so, does he intend to do so and, if not, why not?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the short answer to that is, I have received no such benefit.


CODE OF ETHICS-ACTIVITIES OF MINISTER'S WIFE
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for ethical standards in the Government. It involves a situation where a spouse is involved in a conflict of interest situation, in direct contravention of the September 9 letter from the Prime Minister. Setting aside the letter of the law, will the Minister comment on the basic question of ethics? Does he feel that it is appropriate for the wife of a Cabinet Minister to solicit funds on behalf of the Minister's company, from someone who she knows does business with her husband the Minister's Department?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is not my responsibility to hold seminars for the hon. gentleman on the question of ethics.


An Hon. Member:: Just answer questions.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Just to stonewall.


Erik Nielsen: The answer is that Ministers of the Crown are required to comply with the code of conduct with respect to public office holders. I am satisfied, and have so informed the Prime Minister, that the Minister concerned has complied with that code of ethics. The hon. gentleman should have discovered that himself if he examined the records, which I am sure he has done by now.


PRIME MINISTER'S LETTER TO MINISTERS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, a seminar is to deal with a theoretical question. It is a responsibility of a practising politician to deal with real issues.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Is it appropriate for this position to have been taken, with a spouse doing business like that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a supplementary question dealing with ministerial responsibility?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Is the Acting Prime Minister stating that the September 9 letter from the Prime Minister to the Ministers which says that they have an individual responsibility to avoid conflict of interests involving their spouses or their dependent children, is in fact a dead letter? Is that the position of the Government?


Erik Nielsen: Not at all, Sir.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER APPEAR BEFORE PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I want to inform the Minister, as did one of my colleagues, that on Thursday a parliamentary committee will consider the question of the Minister's conduct, the conflict of interest rules and alleged favouritism. Is he prepared to agree to appear voluntarily before that committee to clear the air?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member would want to have the correct facts on the record and not leave any misunderstanding with respect to the situation. As I understand it, there has been a proposal put forward with respect to the business and agenda of that particular committee, but no decision has been made and the matter is under advisement. If there is anyone on that committee who the Hon. Member knows, he may be able to put his own point of view through that member on the committee.


COMMITTEE DECISION INQUIRY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister give his assurance that the decision will be made by the members of the committee and not imposed upon them by the Government, particularly by the Acting Prime Minister, and that if members of the committee want the appearance of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion he will be free to come? I ask him again whether he will come in that situation?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker-


Lloyd Axworthy: He refuses.
May 6, 1986


John V. Nunziata: Stonewall.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He asked me whether or not the Government imposes its will on its Members. Members in this Party, unlike the Liberal Party where there is always the heavy yoke of Government intervention, are allowed to make up their own minds on all the issues.


Mr. Althouse:: Why don't you allow them to speak for themselves, then?


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. It follows the question asked by my colleague from Hamilton Mountain. I want to put my question to the Minister directly. Did the Minister personally make the decision to exempt Hyundai from its FIRA commitments and did he do so with knowledge of the threat made by the officials from Hyundai that, otherwise, they would close the factory in his own constituency?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, to perhaps give Hon. Members an indication of how bizarre the opposition questioning is becoming, when the Hon. Member refers to closing a factory in my constituency, the fact is that when the MOU was entered into, that factory was not even built, the ground was not even broken.


MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, a senior official from Hyundai said Monday: "If Stevens had not dropped the Canadian purchase commitment the company would have had to abandon either the parts plants in Stevens' riding-"


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


Steven W. Langdon: I ask the Minister directly, did the Minister have knowledge of this decision, did he make it personally with respect to the FIRA commitment, and did he do so with knowledge of such threats as these from Hyundai?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate-


John Edward Broadbent: That's right, yes.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -when a sizeable international firm, in this case an automotive manufacturing concern, decides to invest in Canada and it is so maligned in this House of Commons-
Oral Questions


John Edward Broadbent: Maligned? It's you. We're not criticizing it, we're criticizing you. Did you hear the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -by Opposition Members.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Why don't you resign.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


RAILWAYS
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. In light of the seriousness of an incident which occurred yesterday morning when 10 rail cars of a B.C. Rail freight train derailed in the backyards of a residential area of West Vancouver, British Columbia, causing an estimated half a million dollars damage to municipal and residential property, with the derailment stopping one car short of cars carrying LPG products, will the Minister order an inquiry into this accident? What assurances can the Minister give to the residents along this densely populated rail line that their lives and property are adequately protected?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that B.C. Rail is a railway which comes under provincial, not federal jurisdiction. Notwithstanding that fact, our CANUTEC people have been advised of the issue and we are monitoring it very closely. Any investigation or corrective measures which may or may not be taken come under the responsibility and jurisdiction of the provincial Government.


PETROLEUM AND GAS REVENUE TAX-REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE FOR SMALL OIL PRODUCERS
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. The Government refuses to listen to the needs of the energy industry. Even the Acting Prime Minister must realize that most small oil producers were not paying the petroleum and gas revenue tax in the first place. Why would the Government give an exemption from this tax which does practically nothing to help these people? When is the Government going to do something concrete to help the small oil producers?

May 6, 1986
Oral Questions


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, finally we have a sane question in this House.


Mr. Speaker:: Oh, oh!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Too bad it's wasted on you.


John Horton McDermid: I could answer the Hon. Member this way. With the dismantling of the National Energy Program most small producers have money today that they would not have had under the old program. That is the first thing, and I think it is very important. Second, the Hon. Member stands up and continues to cry help, but never gives us one iota of a suggestion as to how the Government can help. We took action last week. It was received positively in the oil patch. We are continuing to work with our provincial counterparts in helping this very necessary agency.


PETRO-CANADA-REQUEST FOR INCREASE IN PRICE TO PRODUCERS
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the Government did nothing for the small producer. The one thing it can do for the small producer is to tell Petro-Canada to pay them a fair price for their product.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: When is it going to do that?


John Horton McDermid: They are sucking and blowing at the same time, Mr. Speaker.


Ms. Copps:: You are sucking and blowing at the same time.


John R. Rodriguez: You are an expert.


John Horton McDermid: One time they are asking-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is not necessary. Just an answer, please.


John Horton McDermid: One time they are asking us to lower the prices to the consumers, and then they are asking to raise the price to the producers. They cannot have it both ways.


Jacques Guilbault: That's too complicated for you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


CHALLENGE '86 HIRING OF STUDENTS BY MAGNA INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Apparently the Minister thinks that Canada needs auto parts more than children, otherwise why did her Challenge '86 Program cut back, compared to last year, 20 student day-care appointments in the riding of Spadina and divert the money for the hiring of 15 students for telephone marketing summer employment for Magna International which has no operation in Spadina or even in Metro-Toronto?


Hon. Andree Champagne (Minister of State (Youth)):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have done our best this year to ask the private sector to get very much involved and create jobs for young students-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: You picked up the wrong script.


Andrée  Champagne: -jobs where they will learn the skills they will need after graduation.


Lloyd Axworthy: Where did you get your loan?


Andrée  Champagne: As well, the public sector and all communities are getting their fair share and an awful lot of jobs will be created-


John Edward Broadbent: That's the wrong page.


Andrée  Champagne: -there as well through Challenge '86.


DAY-CARE WORK EXPERIENCE
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister knows well that these students, most of them women, in order to be eligible to study early childhood education, must have hands on experience in day-care work. Why does the Minister deny that experience to more than half of them, compared to last year, in order to give it to telephonists?


Andrée  Champagne: Mr. Speaker, the figures quoted by the Member are not really true.


Ian Deans: Woops! Absolutely true.


Andrée  Champagne: Forty-eight per cent of the applications which have been approved right now have come from the private sector and account for 39 per cent of the moneys which have been allocated. Fifty-two per cent of those applications which were approved come from the municipalities and the public sector and account for 61 per cent of the money allocated. As the Hon. Member can see, the community and public sector are very well served.


Miss MacDonald:: Hear, hear!
May 6, 1986


REFUGEES
Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Under Canadian immigration laws an individual claiming refugee status is entitled to full access to the refugee determination process. Under this process it is a possible that a terrorist or unconvicted criminal who declares himself a refugee would get exactly the same treatment as an individual from the East Bloc who is claiming political asylum. Are there presently any measures underway which would prevent abuse of our immigration system, thus saving the Government the long, costly process of trying to deport a terrorist?


Hon. Walter McLean (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to assure the Hon. Member that the Immigration Act does provide powers to arrest and detain any known terrorist. As the Hon. Member will know, we have in place a security mechanism to detect any terrorists who may be seeking to enter the country. They would not in any way receive the same treatment as a bona fide refugee. They would be detained and after due process be deported.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. The Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that any citizen may plead in English or French before federal courts. It has also stated that the federal State may use the official language of its choice in court action against the accused.
In practice, will the Government of Canada adopt a policy whereby the federal Government will use the official language of the citizen, both in criminal proceedings and in other spheres under federal jurisdiction? Yes or no?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, there will be amendments to the relevant legislation proposed to this House before this year is out dealing with these matters. I can assure the hon. gentleman that we will make clear what the rules are and that the use of both official languages will be treated equally in federal courts. Certainly it is our policy that all documents and summonses issued by federal courts, or wherever we have authority, will be in both official languages.
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT THE GOVERNMENT MODIFY THE LAW-FEDERAL PROSECUTORS TO USE OFFICIAL LANGUAGE OF ACCUSED
Jean-Robert Gauthier: I thank the Minister for his answer. Will the federal Government, that is the federal State, be compelled to take court action against an individual in the language of this individual? If we really want an effective statute, will the federal Government introduce a constitutional or other amendment requiring federal Government counsel to use the language of the accused?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I can only assure the hon. gentleman that the present Government of Canada has done everything it can to improve bilingual services in the courts, including opening language training to both provincial and federal judges. We are meeting with the provinces, and at our insistence they have each agree to work out a schedule with us so that criminal trials can take place in both official languages across the country. All of this is a great deal more progress than was made by our predecessor.


CURRENCY
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. On March 25, the Minister announced that Canada will have a $l-coin. At that time he also indicated that Inco would produce the nickel blanks for the coin and Sherritt Gordon would put the bronze plating on the coin. There seems to be some confusion now about whether or not Inco will get the order for the blanks.


Mr. Speaker:: Question, please.


John R. Rodriguez: Can the Minister clear up the confusion right now by confirming that Inco will in fact produce the nickel blanks and Sherritt Gordon will put the bronze plating on the coin?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the confusion arises. We agreed to adopt the all-Party recommendation that the mining and smelting of the nickel be done in Canada. Inco is going to produce the nickel. It is up to Sherritt Gordon to decide who it wants to do its work. That decision rests with that company.

May 6, 1986
Oral Questions ROLEOFINCO


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister clearly indicate to the House whether or not Inco will be given the order to produce the nickel blanks on which Sherritt Gordon will then put the bronze plating? Will the Minister answer that specific question and not confuse it with nickel smelting-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, production of the coins has been given by contract to Sherritt Gordon and whatever arrangements it wishes to make with Inco is within its jurisdiction.


John R. Rodriguez: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. The current extradition treaty between Canada and the United States does not take into account crimes involving computers. Can the Minister tell the House if he intends to add this important and growing area of criminal activity to the treaty list, or will he abandon all together the list of specific crimes that currently exists and replace it with more general criteria?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member puts her finger on one of the inadequacies in our laws, that is that the extradition treaties and legislation are of great antiquity and go back to the early years of this century. We in the Department are working with the U.S. and are trying to reach a modern, up-to-date treaty that will cover extradition and such crimes as the Hon. Member has mentioned.
By the way, I would like to let the Hon. Member know that 44 per cent of all our judicial appointments have been either bilingual or Francophone.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CURRENCY
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Supply and Services. Is the Minister
aware that the Ottawa Bureau of the Sudbury Star has on tape the word he gave at the press conference on March 25 at which time he promised that the blanking work would go to the International Nickel Company? Is the Minister prepared to live up to the word he gave at that press conference on March 25?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a verbatim recollection of what was said at the press conference but to clarify, if I said something that has misled someone, as I have said in response to my friend who just crossed the floor only for a moment-


An Hon. Member:: Thank God.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stewart Donald McInnes: -the smelting and mining of the nickel will be done in Canada. Sherritt Gordon has a contract to produce the blanks. It can involve Inco in any phase of the operation it wishes. That is up to Sherritt Gordon.


OPPORTUNITY TO BID ON WORK
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister explain to the House why it is that the International Nickel Company is not being allowed the same opportunity to bid on the blanking work as Sherritt Gordon, which is from the Province of Alberta, has been given?


Stewart Donald McInnes: Mr. Speaker, we received an all-Party recommendation from the House and we followed it absolutely.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour and pertains to the $200 million Canada Place project in downtown Edmonton. Why has the Minister not had his Department ensure that the federal fair-wage guidelines that should be associated with this project were followed in order to enable the construction workers to receive a fair wage and have reasonable working conditions?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, strictly because the building to which the Hon. Member has referred is being built by Trizec, a private corporation, and not by the federal Government.


CIRCUMVENTION OF FAIR-WAGE GUIDELINES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Minister would explain why the big sign out in front of the project says: "Public Works Canada, the site of
May 6, 1986

Canada Place". Would the Minister not admit that using this construction technique is simply a way around letting construction workers in that province receive a fair, decent wage?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: No, Mr. Speaker, I would not.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in response to the use of enforcement quotas in appraising the performance of Immigration officials, the Minister said the following:
Numerical indicators are used only for statistics and in the process of planning and organizing.
If that is so, why did his Deputy Minister state the following in a memo dated March 13:
Numerical indicators may be relevant in evaluating the productivity of employees.
Does he not realize that a conflict exists? When will an inquiry be struck to eliminate such practices?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that a study was held and that this is but one of a number of factors in the overall appraisal.


NATURE OF INQUIRY
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, then the Minister was misleading the House yesterday because he clearly stated in the House that some practices are not-


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


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I return to the premise of my question. If an inquiry has been struck, can the Minister tell us when it was and what kind of an inquiry it was because such declarations made by a Deputy Minister run in the face of what this Minister told the House yesterday.


Walter Franklin McLean: Speaker, I repeat, every manager uses numeric ongoing data in order to keep statistics and records and their operations. This is the situation in this case.
Point of Order-Mr. Deans REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION


LOSS OF DEVCO CONTRACT IN CAPE BRETON
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. His Department, through Devco, allowed the offshore fabricators to lose a contract for Cape Breton. Can the Minister explain how we are going to promote jobs in the Cape Breton region if he is going to let those contracts go offshore?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the contract to which the Hon. Member is referring is one for which Devco solicited various bids, including a bid from those in Cape Breton. After due consideration and the weighing of various bids, it was found that the Cape Breton bid was substantially higher than the other bids.
We have left that entirely to the management and board of DEVCO. Any decision they have made has been purely on commercial grounds after giving due consideration to what they regard as preferential treatment for any Cape Breton bidders.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Yesterday the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) raised a point of order concerning the propriety of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) answering questions in the event that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is present in the House at the same time. He made the point that while the Deputy Prime Minister becomes the Acting Prime Minister during the Prime Minister's absence, he cannot be considered the Acting Prime Minister when the Prime Minister himself is present in the House.
The Prime Minister answers for the Government as a whole and is entitled to answer any question he chooses to answer relating to any ministerial portfolio and any matter of policy. He is equally entitled to delegate this responsibility to the Deputy Prime Minister, a responsibility the latter would normally exercise as Acting Prime Minister during the absence of the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister may also delegate specific matters to the Deputy Prime Minister. As we know, the Deputy Prime Minister has the current responsibility of dealing with matters relating to conflict of interest and the guidelines by which Ministers are bound. It would therefore seem logical that the Deputy Prime Minister should continue to answer questions concerning conflict of interest, even if the Prime Minister were

May 6, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
in the Chamber, unless the Prime Minister chose to deal with such questions himself. In this case he would be answering not as Acting Prime Minister; he would be answering, like any other Minister, for a matter falling within his assigned responsibilities.
In the final analysis, Ministers are under no obligation to answer questions at all, and the distribution of responsibility in answering them is a matter for the Government to decide. Any Minister may answer any question regarding a matter over which he or she has ministerial responsibility, although the Chair would ask Ministers to consider indicating to the House the ministerial capacity in which they are replying when that is not self-evident, in the way, for example, that the Deputy Prime Minister so explained his assigned responsibility for conflict of interest matters.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal PostSecondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Garneau (p. 12980).
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see the Hon. Member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) seeking the floor. Since the Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) has finished, his remarks, I must recognize the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp).


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the debate on the Bill dealing with federal contributions to the financing of post-secondary education and health care in Canada. It is particularly a privilege to take part in the debate because of the great importance of federal contributions in developing our health care and our postsecondary educational systems over the years. Those contributions were of enormous importance in the 1960s and 1970s, but very unfortunately they have declined in the last years. This has had the effect of creating uncertainty in post-secondary education and also in particular in our health care system.
I have only a few minutes this afternoon in which to take part in the debate by expressing my concerns.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The noise in the Chamber is not fair to the Hon. Member; it is simply not fair to the Hon. Member who has the floor.


Abram Ernest Epp: I have only a few minutes this afternoon to comment upon the proposals which the Government has put before us regarding contributions over the next years toward health care and post-secondary education. I want to take those minutes to comment particularly on the effect of declining rates of increase on our universities and colleges because it is there that the crisis in education, research, and the development of the country is most clearly to be appreciated. Our universities and colleges are important in achieving the kind of economy and society which we will require in the last years of the 20th century. Therefore, the proposals of the Government deserve very severe examination. We need to press the Government to reconsider its proposals and to open up the matter of financing for health care and post-secondary education as it deserves to be opened up.
Against this background of general observations, let us take a look in some detail at what has happened during the past 20 years in the development of support from the federal Government for post-secondary education. In fact, we could go back 20 years to a federal-provincial conference which was held in 1966. That conference arrived at understandings among the provinces and the federal Government for support by the federal Government toward post-secondary education. Under those arrangements the federal Government advanced 50 per cent of provincial contributions to post-secondary education to the provinces for those purposes. As a result universities expanded during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Particularly in the Province of Ontario universities finished their construction and were prepared to take in students. Enrolment in universities and colleges grew rapidly, and the support of the federal Government for these purposes was sufficient to meet the need. Through the mid-1970s the arrangements on shared cost financing of post-secondary education had been well developed under arrangements dating back to 1967.
All of these facts have been well surveyed by Mr. A1 Johnson who is now a professor at the University of Toronto. The current issue of Policy Options has taken a look at the situation in universities. Mr. Johnson considered what took place from 1966 -67 through to 1977. He commented upon the efficacy and upon the usefulness of the system. Then he went on to say the following:
This is what renders utterly incomprehensible, to me, the decision of the Trudeau Government, ten years later, to abandon the post-secondary education financing arrangements,
That one sentence expresses the astonishment of someone who has given close attention to the matter and conducted a study on post-secondary education for the last Government. He pointed out that the consequence of the established programs financing Bill, to which we are now considering some changes, had the effect of removing the shared cost arrangements between Ottawa and the provincial Governments. As a consequence, when Ottawa transferred funds to the provincial Governments, the provincial Governments were under no obligation to advance those moneys to the universities. They could use them, strings untied, for any purpose at all. As a result, provincial Governments have put less and less provincial
May 6, 1986

money into universities and colleges. They have allowed more and more of the burden to be borne by the federal Government through these contributions because there was no check on them or no obligation at all, although one would think there would have been an obligation of honour.
I should like to refer to the eventual result in the worst cases. British Columbia poses a startling and stark example of how it could be abused. B.C. universities received less from their provincial Government than the federal Government had advanced to the Province of British Columbia for postsecondary education. In fact, the Province of British Columbia was making money on established programs financing.
The result has been that Canadian universities and colleges have not received the funds they needed in order to carry on their programs. When the federal Government cut back on its contributions in the 6-and 5-period, it exacerbated the problems which had been created by the arrangements of 1977. When the funds universities needed were growing by only 2.5 per cent in real terms while the number of students enrolling in universities grew by 27 per cent and the students enrolling in colleges grew by 36 per cent, a new Government came into office and contemplated the situation. What we were looking for from a new Government was for it to say that, for whatever reason, the Trudeau Government made a fundamental mistake with the 1977 Act. We needed to throw out the 1977 Act and try to return to the arrangements of 1967 and ensure that federal contributions matched provincial contributions so that the university and college system of the country would again be financed on the basis it should.
In an era when free trade is the issue before us all, the quality of the Canadian workforce, the techniques in our factories, the levels of production and the sophistication of the production we want to achieve are important issues. From the economic perspective, the importance of universities and colleges to advance our basic research capability is paramount. I say that not because I want to ignore the other areas of social and cultural importance that universities and colleges also support-because as a professor in an arts faculty I would hardly be ignorant of those things-but to emphasize the enormous economic importance of a strong post-secondary education system.
What has the Government given us? Instead of fundamental reform, it has rejected the EPF arrangements and rejected the development of a system in which federal contributions would encourage growing provincial contributions and adequate support of post-secondary education. We see changes being made in the spirit of six and five. We see the federal Government reducing the rate at which contributions to postsecondary education were expected to grow. We see provincial Governments being told that there will be less money than they expected and that the universities and colleges will have to do what they will.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
In this context we see another failure of policy. Mr. Johnson says in his article that it was not that there was any plan here for a different way of doing things and it was not that Governments were saying: "Let's shift the burden to students." That is an action, though, which the Government conceivably might want to take. It might want to think that families and young people should be able to come up with the resources to support their own education, but it is not something my colleagues and I would favour at all. We would want to go in the opposite direction. We would want to see assistance to students expanded and the amount of tuition and other costs students have to bear for their education reduced. It is not that there is any such plan made explicit. There is nothing here except one instance of a Government's desperate desire to reduce its expenditures. It is one more desire to hold the lid on things without any serious recognition of what the consequences are going to be for the country.
I see that my time is almost up, but I want to express most serious alarm about the consequences for Canadian universities of the established programs financing and call upon the Government to abandon these arrangements, take up the report of Mr. A1 Johnson and arrive at the kinds of arrangements that will give us the capacity in teaching and research which the country needs so desperately.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak today in the debate on Bill C-96 to amend the 1977 legislation on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements and, more specifically, the contributions granted by the federal Government to the provinces for secondary education and health care.
My hon. colleague, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), has proposed an amendment to the Bill, urging the House to refuse further consideration of a Bill whose principle consists in unilaterally reducing federal payments to the provinces for post-secondary education and essential health services. I want to say that I give my unqualified support to this amendment by my hon. colleague from Laval-des-Rapides, because I think it is absolutely intolerable that the Government, after promising it would treat the provinces with civility, would never act unilaterally, and would ensure that any decision by the federal Government would be taken after prior consultation with the provinces ... Well it is obvious that Bill C-96, the Bill before the House today, is a complete reversal of what the Conservative Government promised. Once again, this Government has failed to keep its word. Once again, the Conservative Government has failed to meet its commitment to the provinces of Canada. I fail to understand why there are no Ministers or Members from Quebec to protest this absolutely unconscionable decision on the part of the Canadian Government.	.
Indeed, according to the figures which we were provided with, the province of Quebec will lose some $2 billion over the next few years because of that decision reached by the Tory Government. Gilles Lesage, Legislative Assembly Reporter for

May 6, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Le Devoir, wrote the following on May 3rd, after the Budget brought down by the Quebec Finance Minister, and I quote:
The kind and gentle Gerad D.-
He is the Quebec Finance Minister.
-whom nobody would ever suspect of dark secessionist designs, is urging his federal counterpart to respect his commitments on equalization payments and to negotiate in good faith on fiscal arrangements, instead of transferring part of his deficit to the provinces, without the latter having their say.


Raymond Garneau: Right on!


André Ouellet: Mr. Lesage goes on to say, and I quote:
He is calling for fairness, justice, respect for the Constitution and regard for one's own word. Nothing less.
Mr. Speaker, such comments by the Quebec Finance Minister concerning this Conservative Government are clearly very serious. And nobody can claim that this is another of those famous federal-provincial bickerings that implied hostility between a Liberal federal Government committed to serving Canadian interests and a separatist Quebec Government committed to serving the interests of Quebec independence. One could understand at the time that there were not only opposing views but basically conflicting goals that necessarily led to confrontation between the provincial and federal levels, to public quarrels between those two Governments because there was no way they could agree on anything.
But now, Mr. Speaker, the situation is altogether different. We have here in Ottawa a Conservative Government which of course is respectful of provincial jurisdictions and which is committed to doing nothing without negotiating with the provinces, and in Quebec on the other hand we have a Liberal Government which is respectful of Canadian unity and which is only asking that this Government live up to its commitments. Indeed, columnist Gilles Lesage writes, and I quote:
So, Quebec is in favour of a Federal withdrawal from certain areas.
The Quebec Government fully understands that, under certain circumstances, the Government of Canada may wish to withdraw from certain areas. I quote:
But it cannot accept such a withdrawal without negotiations with the provinces and, more importantly, without a compensation in terms of Fiscal transfers. It (the Quebec Government) wishes therefore a global negotiation of the major programs involved.
If Ottawa can no longer assume its responsibilities regarding some transfer programs, it should withdraw from these areas in return for a compensation in terms of additional tax points. The negotiations would determine the extent of the fiscal Field to be allocated to the provinces which desire to assume fully their constitutional responsibilities.
Finally, the Quebec Government considers that a formal agreement between the two levels of Government would be the only way to confer on the Fiscal arrangements a more permanent, stable, and less arbitrary character than the current arrangements.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious from reading this article that the present Conservative Government is not willing to proceed clearly, objectively, even honestly in its negotiations with the provinces.
During discussions with the provinces, the previous Federal Government had considered the possibility of transferring tax
points. As we know, this has been done in the past. Tax points have been transferred to the provinces in order for them to better assume their responsibilities.
I suggest the present Conservative Government has assumed an unspeakable attitude, and that my colleague the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) had every reason to move a motion calling on the House not to accept this Bill at this time. Why? Because this Bill will affect all provinces and cause them to lose billions of dollars over the next few years because of a unilateral decision of this Conservative Government.
Second, because the Government is merely transferring its own deficit to the provinces, which is entirely unacceptable in the present situation.
Third, because the Government has acted unilaterally, without the consent of the provinces and above all has failed to respect the tradition of federal-provincial arrangements. And also because during the last election campaign, the Conservatives promised to observe current arrangements for transfer payments to the provinces, especially for post-secondary education and health care services, because as we all know, there are some areas where costs have increased considerably and the provinces have to foot a much larger bill.
Today, it is utterly irresponsible on the part of the Canadian Government to withdraw from its commitments. It is leaving it up to the provinces to cope with an aging population which means more expenditures and health care, and it is letting the provinces foot the whole bill for post-secondary education, a sector that is extremely important to a country that wants to hold its own internationally and that must have a well-educated and above all specialized population in order to meet international competition today.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that if this Bill is approved by the Government, it will be a disgrace for all those Conservative backbenchers who are shirking their duty, who are not defending the interests of their voters, and especially for that bunch of Conservative yes-men from Quebec who go along with anything the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) wants to do, in this case, deprive the province of Quebec, over the next few years, of $2 billion Quebec would need to adequately fund education and especially health care programs.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, the effect of Bill C-96 is to reduce transfer payments to the provinces for the funding of health and post-secondary education. This legislation should, of course, be condemned. I hear one of the Government Members saying that it is all going to increase. That is an argument the Liberals could have made. They, of course, exhibit their own inconsistencies of argument.
It is not really enough to condemn this legislation. We should be censoring the Government, not only for policies
May 6, 1986

inconsistent with the role and necessity of post-secondary education in the country, but for a variety of policies and policy failures which seem to be designed to place the university and college system at a level equal to that of a fourth or fifth-rate nation.
There are those who would want to address the issue of the funding of health care and the effects this legislation will have on the hospitals, patients, and healthcare workers of the country. However, I think it is time to focus on the terrible inconsistency between what the Government says it stands for and what this legislation reflects. I have heard many speakers refer to the fact that the Government claims to be committed to having Canada enter into the late 20th century competition in science and technology, compete effectively in international markets, and use secondary manufacturing and research and development to ensure that our resources benefit us commensurate with their value, which can be enhanced by the entry into the equation of human creativity and so on. This morning we heard of the concern of the Science Council about the failure to anticipate what the result will be of the failure to develop a sound science and research policy for the free trade negotiations and what could be the free trade fact of the future.
Perhaps it is time to reflect on what the universities and colleges of our country mean to us. There is no doubt that universities provide a place where basic research occurs and knowledge is expanded in a fashion which will materially affect our future economic growth, although we sometimes infer from the positions which the Government takes that it is not completely cognizant of the relationship between basic science and industrial development and the fact that one cannot contrive basic research in order to accord with whatever notion one has of economic development and the growth of technological industries. Although the role is significant, it is significant in a way which politicians sometimes cannot quite understand.
1 think it is time to emphasize the fact that it is not only technological and hard science research which occurs in universities. The university is a place where knowledge is expanded and new knowledge is discovered. This new knowledge contributes to the civilization, humanization, and economic development of our country. As well, we must emphasize that the university is a place where young people learn and teaching occurs. Leadership develops there, as do the people who are going to continue to contribute to Canada as a civilized place to live. It is also a place where opportunity can be gained by so many of our people who were not born with a silver spoon in their mouths. It is a place where people can break through the fences which have stopped them from making their mark in our society, a mark which in the past was determined by family background, class or whatever. It is in a sense a place of equalization of opportunity for so many people. Yet we have had a series of Governments which have failed to acknowledge the important role which post-secondary education should play in the development of policy.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
A number of events have been affecting the university system. There have been a number of reports, including a royal commission in Nova Scotia, a commission in Ontario, as well as the A1 Johnson Report and the Macdonald Report. There has been a great deal of formal focusing on concerns in the universities. There has been some expression on the part of the university community about the failure of the federal and provincial Governments to arrive at an agreement for a system of funding universities and colleges in a way that addresses the very severe circumstances in which they are struggling. These circumstances have been a repeated topic of debate, so Government Members should be perfectly aware of the crisis in the university system.
The crisis takes a number of forms of expression. The most important is the increasing number of recommendations appearing in all these reports concerning substitutions for funding not being provided by the federal and provincial Governments. A recurring theme among many of these reports is the statement that universities can no longer continue to place the emphasis on accessibility which characterized the previous two decades. The argument seems to be that this has been done at the expense of the very best in our society, meaning those who in the past have had easy access to university by virtue of wealth or family position. We have reports which say that fewer young people should go to university. We have reports which say quite explicitly that the trend towards equalization of opportunity, which has characterized the last two decades, should be turned around. Perhaps we should have fewer of the poor, fewer mothers, fewer disabled and fewer minority members attending university because that compromises the ability of universities to do research.
There has been another suggestion, that if we need to fund university research, then let's hook up the universities to industry. Let's make grants conditional upon an equivalent contribution by industry. The universities should be more pragmatic, connected more to the economic process in the surrounding communities. However, what we will then find is that basic research, which is so essential to universities, is going to be sacrificed. More important, the university and college system will be steered in the direction of priorities established by business people and corporations which would like the universities and colleges to be their handmaidens. The results are clear. It would mean less emphasis on teaching. If the university fails to teach, then it fails to fulfil its mission.
I could go on citing the effects of no policy or bad policy or inconsistent policy, and my colleagues would have me continue as well. However, I see you crossing your hands, Mr. Speaker, and as a consequence I shall concede the floor to the next speaker.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise to speak once again on this Bill. In particular, it gives me the opportunity to ask the

May 6, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Government to correct an error in judgment. The Ministers concerned should go back to their provincial counterparts, the Ministers of Education and Ministers of Health and Welfare, and get the proper input so that we can avoid the drastic effects which are possible as a result of this Bill.
Like every other elected Member of this House, whether Minister, Parliamentary Secretary, back-bencher or, as my hon. friend from committee would say, private Member, I have a fundamental duty and responsibility to respond to the needs of my constituents. With that in mind, it is kind of sad that I have had to defend the needs of my constituents on so many occasions over the last few weeks. I have had to stand up and ask for an employment equity Bill which will allow the targeted groups, such as visible minorities, women and the handicapped, real access to real jobs. I have had to stand up and talk about the competition Bill and the real fear of people in my riding, indeed across the country, about the concentration of power and the fact that there is a sense of powerlessness in addressing those concerns. And here I am again, speaking, as I did the other day, on a Bill which addresses itself to equalization payments.
I do not believe there is anyone in this House who does not have a real sense of compassion and concern for the health of our society and its communities. We are concerned about education, particularly the education of young people. I, for one, am also concerned about the education of women, particularly those who are coming back into the workforce. This Bill can have very negative effects on the lives and future potential of many of those people. When you cut funding for education and health care, you are damaging the quality of life in this country, a quality of life of which Canadians have been very proud.
As Members of Parliament, our pathway to this House has been people. Our success here is determined by how we are able to meet the needs and concerns of the people in our society. I think it would be very wise for the Government to reconsider its plans, readdress its programs, and focus its agenda by discussing these issues with its provincial counterparts. I can say in retrospect from my seat here in the Parliament of Canada, along with all of my colleagues, that it is my responsibility to react to and to formulate the laws of this land.
I see and I appreciate even more the partnership role one finds within the volunteer sector and this parliamentary wing of our society.
Those of us who ignore the groups which come to speak to us, the volunteers who give freely of their time, effort, energy, concern and consideration, do so at our peril. The volunteer sector fulfils a very vital and key need in our institutions, particularly in our health care institutions. They cannot do the whole job. The volunteers bring caring, sharing, thoughtful consideration, concern and interest with respect to the programs that we have put into place. They are less rigid, less formal and can respond to the needs of the citizens. Because of
the bureaucratic nature of our institutions, schools and hospitals, we must keep in mind what is being said to us. We are very vulnerable in the kinds of cuts we may make. If you allow this Bill to go back for consultation the institutions in the provinces are in a better position to start to consider where they may tighten their belts without adversely impacting on either the education or the health structures in the provinces.
We cannot just tell the Canadians to pay their taxes, we must decrease the deficit. You also have to consider the quality of life and where you are going to make up for what you consider to be the key factor in all your deliberations and all the policy positions, that is, the reduction of the deficit. The deficit should be reduced, and I hope that you and I together can find effective and efficient ways to reduce it, but not on the backs on our youth, their potential for education and their future, and not on the backs of the sick and the elderly. Hospitals are already overcrowded, and there is a need for excellence in these services and for the development of new and ongoing programs to meet increasing needs.
This is a society that is undergoing stress. There is tremendous need for mental care. There is tremendous need for facing up to what happens when people lose jobs and lose their sense of self-worth. We will pay more in terms of cost of service to ourselves if we are not wise, careful and capable in the decision as to where we will cut.
As reported at page 12888 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) what she felt and how she responded to the concerns that were expressed in the Quebec Budget. Her answer was the following:
-the Minister of Finance for Quebec reflects some misunderstanding of the formula which was arrived at last year.
I think this indicates a lack of consideration and concern, and indicates even more strongly the need to go back and consult with the provinces.
There was an article in The Gazette referring to a questin of mine, and although it does not attribute the question to me, I did ask it. "Quebec surtax not Ottawa's fault: McDougall". The article, covered by CP, says:
Quebec has misunderstood the formula for calculating federal aid for the provinces if it believes Ottawa is to blame for a multi-million-dollar provincial surtax imposed Thursday, junior Finance Minister Barbara McDougall says. McDougall told the Commons that Quebec received fully half of a special equalization payment granted to several of the poorest provinces last year, but because the Quebec economy is doing better than forecast 'the payment does not work out quite the way it did' at first glance. McDougall did not elaborate on how the misunderstanding might have occurred but reiterated that while the growth of the payment has been slowed they will continue to grow faster than the rate of inflation.
Quebec Finance Minister Gerard D. Levesque announced a $152 million surtax on companies, municipalities and provincial Crown Corporations in the budget he presented Thursday.
He said the surtax was designed to make up for a $148 million shortfall in payments to Quebec from Ottawa intended for health care and post-secondary education and as part of Quebec's equalization payments.
The article goes on to point out that Robert Bourassa said the following:
May 6, 1986

-Ottawa is discriminating against the province by denying it $66 million it is owed in health and higher-education payments.
Liberal MPs have also demanded in recent weeks that federal Finance Minister Michael Wilson honour a commitment that equalization payments to Quebec not drop by more than 5 per cent a year.
1 suggest that this article should be read carefully. The payments to Quebec should return to the 95 per cent floor. If this Government thinks they should be 92.8 per cent, then I would point out strongly that this is one more demonstration of lack of understanding, lack of good faith, and, as might well be the case, lack of goodwill.
1 heartily approve the move by my colleague to delay this Bill until it goes back for rediscussion of its implication for the provinces.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankoughnet)-Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation-Rural and Native Housing Program; the Hon. Member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Mr. Gagliano)- Unemployment Insurance (a) Date of Decision to Apply Regulation with Regard to Early Retirees; (b) Inquiry How Minister can Pretend to Have Informed Beneficiaries in Advance; the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell)-Young Offenders Act-Introduction of amendments-Minister's position.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal PostSecondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Garneau (p. 12980).
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday when I spoke on the amendment to this Bill I mentioned that this was not a time to be reducing the total amount of expenditures for health care and post-secondary education. I think all
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Members would agree that whatever funds the federal Government provides for health care and post-secondary education, the federal authority, in order to carry out its responsibilities, must make sure that those funds are spent well and efficiently from an administrative point of view for the delivery of health and educational services by the provinces.
We say there is probably a greater need for the federal Government to examine more closely, through agreed upon audit procedures, how well the provinces are distributing those funds, whether or not they are being distributed for purposes that they were intended, and if they are not, whether funds are withheld. That is perfectly legitimate. So a province such as British Columbia, as my colleague who spoke earlier mentioned, cannot, so to speak, abscond with funds meant for universities and then put them into something else. In other words, their funds are conditional on their being spent for what they were meant to be spent on, and that they are administered efficiently.
When you consider the economic conditions of Canada's population over the last few years and the way they are likely to be for the next two or three years, this is the worst time of all to reduce the amount that we should be contributing in both health care and post-secondary education. Today, we are experiencing a depression. In previous depressions we were always asked where we would get the money. Tommy Douglas quoted a Minister of Finance at that time who asked a young person whether he thought money grows on gooseberry bushes. When the war started in September, 1939, Tommy said that they found the bush. There was lots of money at that time.
In times of economic depression, when Governments are having difficulty in obtaining funds, that is the worst and least valid kind of argument to make. Governments can arrange financing much easier than individuals, universities or hospitals.
The most positive aspect of it is that the nation as a whole shares in the cost, whether it is through current tax revenues or borrowed funds which are repaid by future tax revenues.
Today, tens of thousands of people are lining up at food banks-a euphemistic name for soup kitchens-in scores of cities throughout the country. Furthermore, a higher proportion of our population is elderly and in need of health care. Therefore, this is the worst time for the Government to be reneging on a fifty-fifty agreement. This is the worst time and these are the worst areas in which to hold down or reduce expenditures in the name of deficit reduction. In fact, any self-respecting Government would not even consider these as programs to hold down or reduce expenditures. In light of today's conditions, the Government should be expanding those facilities.
Even during the "hungry thirties", a Conservative and Liberal Government brought in better care for tubercular and cancer patients when there was little or no money available

May 6, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
because that was the best time to bring in those kinds of programs.
The federal Government should tell the provinces that it will continue its 50/50 sharing, including sharing the cost if the provinces wish to improve or expand their health care systems or university programs, as long as they are in accordance with the agreement and respect the conditions under which the money is provided.
Provinces should be able to provide financial and equipment incentives to the medical profession so that there is a better distribution of doctors in our smaller cities and remote areas. Their respective medical care plans should provide extra money, housing and medical equipment to those doctors as an incentive to go to the remote and the small cities in order that there will be a more equitable distribution of doctors in this country.
I recently saw a television program describing the latest equipment that technology has developed. This equipment, whether it is a kidney dialysis machine or heart transplant equipment, costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. There must be a fifty-fifty cost sharing for the provision of that equipment not only in big city hospitals but throughout the country.
Let me deal with ambulance services. I have a close friend who worked in the ambulance industry. He told me that it is safer and quicker to take a taxi to the hospital if one is suffering from a heart attack. He described a situation where the most experienced paramedic would drive the ambulance while the new recruit would look after the patient in the back. Ambulance services should not be subject to the profit considerations of a private owner. They should be owned and operated by hospitals, the municipalities or the provincial Department of Health. Those services should be completely under the authority of the health care department of the province or municipality. We should spend millions of dollars on paramedic training. There is a distinct shortage of paramedics in this country, for which there is no excuse.
Also, as Canadian nurses have informed us, many hospitals are understaffed. There is no reason why any federal or provincial Government cannot provide adequate nursing and a proper distribution of those nurses. That cost must be shared 50/50. Let us consider home care. Millions of dollars could be saved if people were looked after in their homes rather than occupying hospital beds. There is a great need for chronic care beds for people who are not ill enough to remain in a hospital bed but are too ill to be at home. There are waiting lists as long as your arm for chronic care beds in every city of this country. The federal Government should be willing to share the cost if the provinces and territories increase the number of chronic care beds.
Midwifery is another area in which child birth, under the supervision of the medical and nursing profession, can take place in the home or hospital without the necessity of a physician being in full-time attendance. This may be opposed
by some in the College of Physicians and Surgeons, but that is too bad.
Holland provides marvellous home care, chronic care and midwifery systems in conjunction with its medical practitioners. Countries such as Holland have led the way in these areas.
This is no time for the Government to be chiselling the amount of money it contributes. I do not know of any taxpayers who object to their tax money being spent for these purposes. I believe they would even accept an increase, as long as those taxes were fairly applied. I do not believe any Canadian wants to see those services restricted or cut back. Instead, they want a well managed and efficiently run health care system with well trained practitioners and enough equipment so that there will be equal opportunity for treatment for all Canadians, no matter where they live.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I notice that Conservative Members are not standing up to defend Bill C-96. Is it any wonder that they are not defending an otherwise indefensible piece of regressive legislation?
This legislation illustrates the Government's problem with respect to integrity and credibility. During the last election campaign, the Conservative Party made well over 300 promises. One of the major promises it made was that it would not reduce federal transfer payments to the provinces but in fact would increase those payments. That was a promise made in Sherbrooke, Quebec, on July 26, 1984.
The Conservative caucus promised that they would respect the federal obligation to fund provincial health care through established programs financing and make additional funds available to the provinces on a cost shared basis for the Established Programs Financing Act and make additional funds available to the provinces on a cost shared basis for the establishment or enrichment of programs deemed most likely to improve the general level of health and limit long-term costs. That was the promise, and what has the Government decided to do with respect to that particular promise? It has decided not only to break that promise but to breach a previous commitment made by the Liberal administration to provide an adequate level of funding to the provinces for health care and post-secondary education. There was an agreement in place with the provinces. They fully expected to receive a specific amount of money from the federal Government in order to fund health care and post-secondary education. This Government has decided unilaterally to breach that particular agreement. It has decided to transfer to the provinces over the course of the next six years $8 billion less than what the provincial Governments expected to receive under the previous commitment.
What happened to the promise of consultation? What happened to the promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) after the last national election campaign that the country had embarked upon a new era of national reconciliation? You will recall those words, Mr. Speaker. I ask, where is the new era of
May 6, 1986

national reconciliation? Because not one single, solitary provincial Government has agreed to the specific measures contained in Bill C-96. In fact, the provincial Governments have roundly condemned the federal Government for breaching the previous commitment and threatening the very foundation of Confederation by withdrawing over $8 billion, which would otherwise have been transferred to the provinces over the next six years.
David Peterson, the Premier of Ontario, pointed out to the Prime Minister at the First Ministers' Conference that what the Government was intending to do was to transfer the national problem, the national deficit, to the provincial Governments. Mr. Nixon, the Ontario Treasurer, pointed out that there was a uniform opposition to Ottawa's plan. Nobody thought it was a good idea. Mr. Gerard Levesque, the Quebec Finance Minister, said it was not fair to the provinces because they had been counting on the amounts agreed to in the accords.
Notwithstanding the universal opposition of the provincial Premiers and Ministers of Finance, the Government decided to cut $8 billion.
The Government has decided to cut just under $3 billion in provincial transfer payments over the next six years to the Province of Ontario. I note that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) is in the Chamber today. I would like to point out to him, if he is not already aware of it, that in his home Province of Newfoundland there will be a reduction of $188 million. Where was the Minister of Justice when that particular decision was made? Was he consulted? Did the Minister of Justice, the Minister responsible for Newfoundland, stand up in Cabinet for the people of his home province? Of course he did not. He was afraid. The Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister said: "Sorry, notwithstanding your protestations, we are still going to cut $188 million in federal transfer payments to the Province of Newfoundland over the next six years".
What impact will that cut have on the province of the Minister of Justice? The Conservative provincial Government of Newfoundland will be faced with some very difficult decisions. No doubt that provincial Government, along with other provincial Governments, will have to cut back in the area of health care and education. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that we in Canada are blessed with the best health care system and post-secondary education in the world. As a result of the actions of the Government, that particular level of health care and post-secondary education is being threatened. It is unfair, regressive and, as I indicated earlier, it is a threat to the very basic roots of Confederation.
There are tough decisions which have to be made by the provincial Governments. The provincial Government of Ontario will be without $3 billion in federal transfer payments over the next six years. The Government knows that the only way the province could remedy that particular situation is either to raise taxes or to cut services. There is not much of a choice when the federal Government decides to withdraw $3 billion from the economy of the Province of Ontario. It is not
Federal- Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
fair that that particular Government has either to raise taxes or to reduce expenditures. If the province does decide to reduce expenditures, there will have to be cuts in health care and postsecondary education. The high level of health care we have learned to appreciate will be seriously affected. Provincial Governments will have to close hospitals, cut the number of hospital beds and cut back on such things as cancer research. The universities will have to cut back on the number of courses which are taught and cut back on staff. They will have to increase tuition fees. They might even have to consider charging other forms of user fees in order to make up the shortfall.
Why is the federal Government doing what it is doing? It is obvious that it is absolutely paranoid about the federal deficit. We on this side of the House are concerned about the deficit. We believe that Governments should be fiscally responsible and that we should not spend money without consideration of our national debt. However, if the goal is to reduce the deficit, surely it must be done on a fair basis. It must not be done on the backs of the disadvantaged. Surely it should not be done in a way that would threaten the quality of health care and postsecondary education.
Rather than recognize the serious implications of the measures it is about to take in Bill C-96, the Government is prepared, in order to reduce the deficit and to satisfy its friends on Bay Street and wealthy corporations, to have the average Canadian suffer and simply to push the deficit on to the laps of the provincial Governments. It is patently unfair. Certainly the provincial Governments and all other interest groups will take the opportunity to appear before the committee when this particular Bill is referred to committee. I hope that the Minister of Justice will appear to defend the federal Government on this particular piece of legislation. The people of Newfoundland will be out close to $200 million over the next six years as a result of the broken promise of this particular federal Government. I hope that the Minister will at least have the courage of his convictions and will stand up and explain that to the people of his province.


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a few remarks about Bill C-96, a most unfortunate Bill which will reduce the growth rate of the federal per capita transfers to the provinces for health care and post-secondary education. These transfers are an important federal contribution which help provinces meet their constitutional responsibility for the areas of health and post-secondary education, which make sure that people all across Canada have access to more or less the same standards of health care and post-secondary education, and which use the ability of the federal Government to raise revenue through taxes, an ability which is greater than that of the provinces, to make sure that the provinces are able to provide adequate services.

May 6, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Over the next five years, Bill C-96 will see some $5 billion cut from the ability of the provinces to spend on health and post-secondary education. This amount is cumulative. It begins with a relatively minor amount and then builds up each year until it will total $5 billion by 1991. It is slowly but surely undermining a system that has been built up by previous generations. The effects of Bill C-96 will not be felt too much at first but will be devastating in its final impact.
Perhaps I could use British Columbia as an example. In 1986-87, the current fiscal year, British Columbia stands to lose some $36.8 million as a result of this Bill. Next year that figure will be $77.4 million, the year after $123.7 million, then $173.8 million, and in 1990-91, the figure will be $230 million for a total of $641.8 million over the next five years.
If we had listened to and believed what Conservative Members said when they were in opposition or when they were campaigning during the last federal election, we would be in a state of shock because of the Bill before us. I am sure some Canadians must be in a state of shock, particularly those who were naive enough to have listened to what Conservative Members were saying without listening to what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) said between the lines.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) had this to say regarding Bill C-12, the Liberal Government's six and five program:
First and foremost, Bill C-12 is still a tax grab by the Government. In the 1983-84 fiscal year the Government is able to reduce its projected transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education by almost $120 million and next year that reduction will amount to $260 million. That is the kind of tax grab the Government is getting into with this Bill.
The Minister, when she was in opposition, was concerned about a tax grab of $260 million under the 6-and 5-program. Now we are talking about a tax grab of some $5 billion, and she is applauding it.
During the 1984 election campaign, members of the Progressive Conservative Party stated the following:
We are committed to sustaining the current federal financial commitment, according to the formula set out in the 1977 Agreement... We believe that financing of post-secondary education is an important priority for both levels of governments.
That commitment was made during the election campaign. Where is that commitment today? Just like so many other commitments Conservative Members made, it is forgotten in their blind fixation on reducing the deficit.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Should have got that in writing.


James Douglas Manly: It was in writing but it did not seem to help.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: They didn't sign it.


James Douglas Manly: What we need in writing is the resignations of some of those Ministers over there.
The effect of this Bill will be a two-tiered health care system. Dr. Bill Vail of the Canadian Medical Association, in response to the tabling of this Bill, said the following:
We will have one quality of health care in the rich provinces and second or third rate services in the poor provinces. The dream of Canadians of having access to reasonably comparable health services, no matter where they live or travel, appears to have been abandoned by the Government of Canada.
Dr. Vail went on to point out that the provinces that are going to be particularly affected by this are Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and, to some extent, Quebec and Manitoba. Where are the members of the Conservative Party from those provinces? Why are they not speaking up against this Bill which will have such a disastrous effect on health care in their provinces?
The Canadian Association of University Teachers pointed out that cuts to post-secondary education are going to mean a $1.7 billion shortfall over the next five years. What will be the results of this $1.7 billion shortfall? It will mean that there will be restricted enrolment. There will be increased fees, and that will mean that the children of rich parents will be able to get into universities from which the children of middle-income, working-class parents will be excluded. Children from communities that are far away from university centres will not have access to education because they will not be able to pay the additional tuition costs as well as the higher costs for room and board.
The $1.7 billion shortfall will result in lower standards of teaching and in less research taking place in colleges and universities. In short, the shortfall will result in second-rate universities and second-rate graduates. The result of second-rate graduates will be a second-rate country as a result of this second-rate Government's legislation. Where is the pursuit of excellence about which Conservative Members spoke when they were running for office?
Time after time, we on this side of the House have spoken of the Tory fixation on the deficit. We agree that the deficit is something that has to be looked at with concern, but how are Tory Members dealing with it? They are dealing with it by cutting back in ways that will harm our country's future. Our Party has made a number of suggestions as to how the deficit should be approached, including a system of fair taxes in which everyone pays their fair share, the elimination of waste and the creation of jobs. We should put people back to work instead of cutting back on essential services like health care and post-secondary education.
Those of us who come from British Columbia saw the results of this kind of idiotic cut-back mentality in the last four years. Cut-backs have created a deliberate depression in British Columbia. I would like to remind Hon. Members from all sides of the House that British Columbia is the only province in Canada in which the employment rate has not yet recovered to pre-recession levels. There are 50,000 fewer people working in British Columbia today than in 1981. That is a direct result of the kind of cut-backs that the Province of British Columbia has been implementing over the last four years, the kind of
May 6, 1986

cut-backs that we are seeing implemented by the present Conservative Government.
It is interesting to note that Premier Bill Bennett of British Columbia was the one Premier who did not oppose Bill C-96. He did not oppose these cuts when they were announced because he felt that they were right in line. In fact, he boasted that because British Columbia had cut the percentage of its Budget that was devoted to health care and post-secondary education, the federal contributions as a percentage of those expenditures would actually increase.
In 1979-1980, British Columbia spent 36 per cent of its budget on health and post-secondary education. Five years later, that figure had been reduced to 34.7 per cent. British Columbia is now spending a smaller percentage of its budget on these essential parts of life than it was previously. British Columbia began its program by laying off 2,000 workers, by closing 1,200 hospital beds, by laying off 10 per cent of community college instructors, and by cutting whole departments in universities.
I urge members of the Conservative Party to look at what happened to the economy of British Columbia over the last four years. They should ask themselves whether they want to see that pattern repeated in the rest of Canada. If they look at it, I am sure they will want to change their minds about Bill C-96. I am sure they will want to ditch the Bill and bring in a piece of legislation which will restore adequate financing to our universities and health care system.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I hesitated for a moment because I hoped that one of my two favourite Ministers who are present in the House today might choose to rise and say a few words on Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal PostSecondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977. I would have liked to hear what the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. MacKay) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) might have had to say about the Bill. However, I draw to the attention of the House, and I hope to other Canadians in the gallery and elsewhere in the country, that I have never heard before in the history of Canada about a budgetary measure which has not been defended by a Minister of the Crown during its whole progress through the House.
Bill C-96 was introduced by the Government. It is a budget Bill. However, not one Minister has risen to try to defend it or to try to put forward the Government's case with regard to a measure to which we take so much objection. We in the Liberal Party have tried-and I know the NDP has tried as well-to use every way we can to slow the Bill down in order to bring to the attention of Canadians what is being done here.
I have had the opportunity to speak on another amendment, and I am glad to speak to the amendment of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) which asks that the House declines to proceed with a Bill, the principle of which is
Federal- Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
to reduce unilaterally payments by the federal Government to the provinces for vital health care and post-secondary education services.
No Minister of the Crown wants to speak on the Bill, because they like to travel around the country-and in particular I refer to the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall)-telling Canadians that they are increasing payments to the provinces for health care and post-secondary education.


Alan Redway: They are.


Mr. Lanthier:: They are.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Indeed, some back-benchers have piped up that they are. Let us settle that now. It is true that payments will increase, but if the Bill were withdrawn, the payments would increase by much more than they will increase as a result of it. The Bill reduces the increases to a face-saving, camouflage amount in each year. I challenge any Member, listening to me and making the remark that they are increasing, to deny that the Bill reduces the amounts which would otherwise be paid in each Canadian province over the next six years.
I do not want to make only a general statement about it. I know I only have 10 minutes under the new rules, but I want to put forward the exact figures which we were able to calculate from the material put forward by the Government. They say that payments will increase, but the fact is that payments will be cut compared with what they would be if the Bill could be stopped. That is why I ask people such as the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway), who is paying such close attention to what I have to say, to vote with the Opposition to prevent this nefarious measure from going forward.
I should like to refer to my Province of Ontario. If this Bill were stopped, we would be able to save for the people of Ontario in these two programs $114 million in 1986-87; $250 million in 1987-88, $400 million in 1988-89, $500 million in 1989-90, $750 million in 1990-91, and $916 million in the final year of this six-year period, 1991-92. How can Ontario Conservative Members stand up and vote for a repressive measure about which Ministers will not even talk? As I said before, for the first time in history no Minister has taken the trouble to try to defend a budget Bill which is taking away $3 billion from the health care and post-secondary education programs of Ontario. I urge Ontario Conservative Members not to take away this money from their fellow Ontarians and not to take away billions from the other provinces. I am only talking about my own province, and I see that a Conservative Member from Ontario is listening to what I have to say. However, I could make the same plea, as my colleagues have done, to Conservative Members from other provinces. Bill C-96 does not increase payments to the provinces. It takes away payments from the provinces.
I should like to talk about the programs from which the Conservatives are taking away. It is interesting to note that the

May 6, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
health care support and the post-secondary education support of the federal Government have a very special background. We have put money into health care from the national Treasury, from federal taxpayers, not in the way in which we supported other initiatives of the province in which we believed. It was special. When the program was set up, the federal Government encouraged the provinces to do it. The provinces were against medicare. The Province of Ontario did not want Canadians to have a medicare program-it was a Conservative Government back in the mid-1960s. In fact, when medicare was set up, it refused to enter the program for several years. It stood back and refused to be part of it. We have medicare in Canada, even though it is within provincial jurisdiction, because of a special responsibility which the national Government assumed to support it. All these years we have supported it generously.
What have the Conservatives done without making any announcement about it? Certainly they did not campaign on it. In fact, they said that they would cut the deficit by removing Government waste from the activities of the federal Government. That is where the billions in savings were to come from. They indicated that there was so much waste and extravagance that good programs could be continued. Now the cards are on the table. Ontario and other taxpayers are getting it in the neck.
Instead of finding all the alleged waste and extravagance which they were to cut, they are cutting one of our most important programs-the national health care program, which would not have been in place if the federal Government had not promised to stand behind it, and if Liberal Governments had not stood behind it for many years. Today we see it being cut back, and health care programs have never needed support more than they do now. Senior citizens are increasing as a percentage of the population. They, more than the rest of us, rely on health care programs, and they voted for the Conservative Government. They are the ones who are getting it in the neck. Before turning to the post-secondary education betrayal, about which I also want to make a comment, let me ask the following questions about health care.
How do they expect the provinces to cope with it? They are saying that the health care program is riddled with waste and extravagance and that provincial Governments can cut back on health care and save money without reducing services to people. They were misrepresenting the situation, perhaps unintentionally, when they talked about the big savings in waste and extravagance in the federal household. They are misrepresenting the situation also when they talk about waste and extravagance at the provincial level. I know where the savings will come from at the provincial level. What choice do the provinces have? Ontario is the best off. Will hospital beds be cut? Will emergency departments be cut? Will health care for senior citizens be cut? Will medical research for cancer be cut? Will hospitals be closed? Will user fees have to be introduced by provincial Governments or hours of service by hospitals? What is the answer in Ottawa when serious questions are asked? "You can find the money. We couldn't
cut waste and extravagance in Ottawa but you in the hospitals across the province in the health care centres, in doctors' offices, can cut waste and extravagance".
That will not wash, Mr. Speaker. I hope Ontario Members at least will do the decent thing. If no Minister is prepared to stand up and defend these horrible cuts, why should the backbenchers defend them?


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of any Government Minister rising to defend Bill C-96, it falls to me to attack the Bill and to do so along the lines that have been so ably expounded by my colleagues.
It is a sad day when Opposition Members are left to carry on the entire debate on Bill C-96. Bill C-96 should offer an opportunity for the Government to expound the way in which it is handling its election promises. What is the Government here for if not to put those promises into effect? It appears that the silence on the Government side is very well justified. Perhaps it is the best way for the Government to react. In Bill C-96 we have one of the clearest examples of a Government that has retreated so far from its election commitments as to be in a position now, notwithstanding my hon. friend to my left, of being turned around 180 degrees away from the position it took before the election of September 4, 1984.
Let me quote from the PC campaign handbook. In doing so I know Members opposite will understand that I only do it to bring attention to their own words. I am not doing it in spirit of meanness or gloating that the Conservatives are not living up to their commitments. I am doing this to inspire in them the noble sentiments of remorse that they are not living up to their commitments they collectively and, I am sure, individually made at the time.


An Hon. Member:: Let us hear some good news.


John Edmund Parry: We would have heard something good had the Government kept its word and lived up to its commitment.
It says here:
P.C. Position
We would return to the 1977 funding formula-
And then, somewhat of a crocodile tear given today's circumstances, it goes on:
-though we cannot compensate the provinces for their 6 and 5 funding losses.
Let us analyse the statement "We would return to the 1977 funding formula". Far from returning to it, the Government is dancing in the ruins of the 1977 funding formula. Having seen the Liberals beat it to the ground, the Conservatives are now busily engaged in trampling the debris. Next is the statement, "though we cannot compensate the provinces for their 6 and 5 funding losses". Far from compensating the provinces for those losses, the Progressive Conservative Government is subtracting further from the six and five losses over the 1977 funding formula.
May 6, 1986

That brings me to the whole specious and totally insupportable argument used by the Government in putting forth the cuts it is proposing. What it has said is that the growth of transfers in the Established Programs Financing Act will be reduced by 2 per cent. On the other hand we see the Conservatives' true colours in the 1985 Budget in transfers to provincial Governments. Under the heading of Total Expenditure Reductions and Cost Recovery, it shows a reduction of $2 billion. This brings into question the whole philosophical and economic principle of what is a dollar. The only legitimate measure for a dollar is not the simple numerical index, it is what the dollar will buy. Purchasing power is the only measure of a currency's worth. That is a principle which, if my hon. friend would dare to get up again to speak on this Bill, he would be only too happy to endorse and embrace.
The only measure of currency is its purchasing power. For the Progressive Conservative Government to say that there is no cut-back is false. It is at best misleading and at worst it is gratuitously deceptive.
There will be an increase in the nominal dollars transferred, but what the provinces will be able to buy with the dollars transferred will be 2 per cent less. It will be 2 per cent less next year, 2 per cent less than that the following year, and 2 per cent less than that in the following year. Savings to the federal Treasury will mount up, but the value of what is being transferred to the provinces for the legitimate, praiseworthy and fundamental operations of health care and education will be reduced.
Not only have the Progressive Conservatives broken their election promises, the effect is worse with Bill C-96 than the cuts imposed by the Liberals in this area of EPF.
The Government's action has been taken unilaterally. It was not taken in consultation with the provinces. No province came to Ottawa and volunteered to assist the federal Government in its deficit. Perhaps it would have been a good idea if that had happened.


Alan Redway: Right on.


John Edmund Parry: These cut-backs were not negotiated with the provinces, but imposed unilaterally. It is well to juxtapose that action with the way in which the Government rushed into the bank bail-out. The Government, after all, did not look for provincial participation in that bank bail-out, but it is putting the whole burden of the cut-backs in the establishing programs financing on to the provinces. It is essentially a transfer of the deficit to the provinces, which will have some very unfortunate consequences.
My hon. friend mentions the role of the provinces in transferring burdens to municipalities.


Alan Redway: Right on.


John Edmund Parry: I believe he was in municipal Government at the very time the province was carrying out similar cuts. If the Member did not speak out at that time against those unilateral
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
cuts on the part of the province, then he was letting down his electors at the municipal level, however well he would be serving them at the federal level.
The federal Government is projecting a nominal GNP growth between now and 1990 at around 7 per cent, and the increase in the health and post-secondary education transfers will be 5 per cent. That means the provinces have to bear the difference.
I would like to quote some wise words on what happens when this sort of cut is made. They are as follows:
First and foremost, Bill C-12 is still a tax grab by the Government. In the 1983-84 Fiscal year the Government is able to reduce its projected transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education by almost $120 million and next year that reduction will amount to $260 million. That is the kind of tax grab the Government is getting into with this Bill.


Alan Redway: Who said that?


John Edmund Parry: My colleague asks who said that. I have to reveal with no great pleasure that it was the present Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) in addressing Bill C-12 brought in by the Liberal Government. I am sure that were she here, she would rise to explain how Tory cuts are different from Liberal cuts, because there is not only a substantial and highly attentive audience in this House for that sort of explanation, but I am sure most of the people of Canada would like to know the difference between Tory cuts and Liberal cuts. We know what the effect will be. We know that with these measures the federal share of health and postsecondary education financing will drop from a high in 197980 of 49.9 per cent, which is just a hair below the fifty-fifty split which was originally envisaged for established program financing, to, in 1990, a period of only 11 years, 36 per cent, which is slightly more than one-third.
The federal Government is washing its hands of responsibility to the people of Canada for the provision of health care and post-secondary education by the provinces. It is loading the responsibility on that level of Government which, as all Members of the House know, is well over-burdened with that sort of responsibility now. I believe that is shameful and I wish more members on the Government side would rise and say why they are prepared to support this type of measure.


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to contribute to this debate dealing with the transfers to provinces. As a matter of fact, I have here an article published in the Journal de Montreal newspaper with the following headline:
"Levesque blames Ottawa for acting unilaterally"
This article appeared not in 1982, but on May 2, 1986, the day after the Quebec Government tabled its Budget.
Mr. Speaker, the new Quebec Government has been forced to impose additional taxes on businessmen in that province and

May 6, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
increase the contributions to medicare to compensate for the $148 million it will not get from the Federal Government in 1986 and 1987. Honourable Members need only go back in time a year and a half to remember the statements made during the election campaign, when Conservative candidates were promising a new era of reconciliation. They insisted there would be cooperation between the Federal Government and the provinces. They said they were sick and tired of confrontation. Only a year and a half after promising that there would no longer be any confrontation, we are still reading such headlines as "Levesque blames Ottawa for acting unilaterally".
Mr. Speaker, I should like to remind the House of what the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) said on March 23, 1982, in his capacity as Finance critic for the Official Opposition, and I quote:
"The only sign it shows of cutting spending is by shifting the burden of the established programs funding on to the provincial Governments." " The provinces", said Mr. Wilson, "are now moving into a deficit position, a position which will make it more difficult for them to finance this shift in spending. That is not cooperative federalism. That is predatory federalism, and it will not and cannot work in this country".
That is what he said on March 23, 1982.
What has happened after... Now in March 1986, four years later, what change has he made, Mr. Speaker? For the Minister of Finance to say no... Not only has he failed to keep the stand he had taken in 1982, but he does not abide by what he said in the House, not such a long time ago, when he was guaranteeing at least 95 per cent of these payments. Now, he has decided to cut entirely, or part of it, including $148 million for Quebec, which is very serious, and the new Quebec Government has been forced to impose an additional tax on businessmen in that province to compensate for the $148 million it will not get from the Federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, we have figures here which show the impact Bill C-96 will have on the province of Quebec: a loss of $82.3 million for 1986-87; a loss of $174.9 million for 1987-88; a loss of $277.2 million for 1988-89; a loss of $389.2 million for 1989-90; a loss of $512.4 million for 1990-91 and a loss of $687.6 million for 1991-92, a total loss of over $2 billion. This is entirely unacceptable, Mr. Speaker.
How can anyone make such drastic cuts! Of course it is very easy for the federal Government since its deficit-reducing operation is done at the expense of the provinces. It reduces the federal debt, then tells the provinces to increase their deficit or slash expenditures for health care, education. The focus is on research these days because we want to help young people go into business and spur economic activities. Yet the Government intends to cut back to the extent that universities will be directly affected, so much so that they will be forced to eliminate the very research programs we need so badly to give young Canadians an opportunity to build a career and look forward to a promising future right here in this country.
Once again, Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives have shown that their promises are worthless. We need only recall what happened barely a few months ago, the Matane deal between the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and the Quebec Minister of Energy. There again, broken promises, treachery, broken words! What about the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, Mr. Speaker, who is so outraged that he wrote a letter to all the Members from Quebec, and especially to the Conservative Members, asking them if they had enough backbone to rise and protest against the fact that the federal Government once again was penalizing Quebec farmers operating in the potato industry! The last time, Mr. Speaker, it was in the Quebec Budget, and here is a quote from Le Journal de Montreal. In a report by Normand Girard, the now Quebec Minister of Finances is quoted as saying: "In the same declaration of war, the Quebec Minister of Finance stated that fiscal arrangements between governments should come under the umbrella of a formal agreement between the two levels of government, to give them a more permanent, were stable and less arbitrary nature than the current arrangements". What is the federal Government doing, Mr. Speaker? It moves overnight, unilaterally, failing to consult with anyone to cooperate or actually to ask the provinces whether they could live with those kinds of cuts. Is there a way to settle that? Of course, everyone is aware that we have a deficit at the federal level, but the provinces also have their deficits, Mr. Speaker. And the same taxpayers are footing bills, whether they come from Quebec or Ottawa. Why then did they promise a new era of consultation, of reconciliation? There would be no more confrontation, we would all march together for the good of the country. But today, Mr. Speaker, they find it easier to simply forget all their promises, such as the indexation of old age security pensions, unemployment insurance, the footwear and textile import quotas, and I could go on and on and on, Mr. Speaker. They forgot everything. They came here, they made a horrible about-face which certainly will be remembered by Canadians. And then they will get out as fast as they came in!


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, this is not the first opportunity I have had to speak on this legislation. However, I think there are many more things which have to be said with regard to it. The few members of the Conservative Party who have spoken have tried to paint a picture of New Democrats and Liberals taking their turns speaking against this legislation in the House of Commons because they are afraid to attack the deficit. That is not true. We are as concerned about the deficit as is any other group of Canadians. We in the New Democratic caucus have suggested ways of reducing the deficit to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and his Liberal predecessors. Most of the ideas which we put forward were based on a fair regime of taxation. More than once we have talked in the House about the need to reduce tax expenditures. We have talked about the need for a fairer system of taxation to ensure that the cleaning lady working for the Bank of Commerce is not paying a higher rate of taxation than is the Bank of Commerce itself. We have spoken about all
May 6, 1986

of those things. We spoke about the bail-out of the oil companies and of Dome. We talked about the need to bring the whole financial system of the country under control, whether taxation or Government expenditures.
What the Conservative Members of Parliament have said is not true. It is not just Liberals and New Democrats who say that this legislation is bad. It is groups from all across the country. We have heard my colleague quote the Canadian university students. We have heard Members speaking on behalf of the Canadian Association of University Teachers. We have heard speakers on behalf of nurses, doctors and the Canadian Health Association. All those groups and individuals are concerned about this legislation. There are others who are also concerned. The provincial Premiers, Ministers of Finance, Ministers of Health and Ministers of Education are concerned. It is not just the NDP Premier of Manitoba, or the Liberal Premiers. The Conservative Premiers, especially those in the have-not provinces, are concerned.


James Douglas Manly: Everyone but the Social Credit.


Rodney Edward Murphy: That is the exception. I must admit I have not received a response from the Social Credit Premier. Let me quote from a letter from the Minister of Finance of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, dated April 22, 1986. He makes it very clear that he is responding on behalf of his Premier. He says:
As no doubt you are aware, there has been extensive discussion of the matters covered by Bill C-96 at the official and ministerial level between the Federal and all Provincial orders of Government. These discussions included vigorous protests by the latter over the Federal intention to alter current EPF funding arrangements prior to May 1987.
That is the Conservative Minister of Finance of our easternmost province. That is the province the Tories tried to give away when they were drawing their map last week. This letter was written just before that, perhaps that explains why the map was drawn that way.
In any event, he said they are against this legislation. As we know, the present legislation had one more year to go. It should have covered the period from April 1, 1986, to the end of March, 1987. Despite the fact that promises were made that this money would be given to the provinces, the federal Government has decided to take the money back. As 1 indicated earlier, this is money based on which the provinces have already made commitments. They did not know that the federal Minister of Finance was going to change the law and reduce the amounts they would receive. As a result, they entered into negotiations with their hospitals, community colleges, universities, and the people who work at those institutions. They made commitments based on what the law of the land was and the fact that the federal Conservatives had not indicated their intention of changing that legislation.
I see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) is in the House. It is unfortunate that he did not have an opportunity to hear the words of the Minister of Finance of his province. It is
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
interesting that the provincial Minister is saying that the federal Minister of Justice is wrong, that he is not representing the interests of his province. If memory serves me well, I believe the Minister of Justice was, at one time in his probably too long political career, the Minister of Finance of that very province.


John Carnell Crosbie: I was the father of medicare in Newfoundland.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Yes. I think it was your grandfather who almost took the province into bankruptcy, if I remember correctly. Perhaps the family is trying to get back to its old traditions. Perhaps one of the reasons the Minister of Justice is not representing his province is that he wishes to see it go bankrupt again.
To be fair to the Minister, that has not always been his position. There was a time when he would get up in this House and talk about the need to make sure there was adequate funding for Memorial University. There was a time when he was concerned about the ability of the provinces to provide adequate medical service, especially in his own province. As he always does, he spoke with much eloquence about the need for the federal Government to recognize that responsibility. As soon as I find the page I intend to quote that Hon. Member because I think what he said then is so appropriate. I am sure that if he were let loose from his chain, he would be quite willing to get up and say it again. On February 7, 1984, just over two years ago, as reported at page 1139 of Hansard, the Hon. Member for St. John's West said this:
The Province of Newfoundland, already strapped, already with a current account deficit, already with the highest per capita debt in Canada, is not going to be assisted by this Government.
He was referring to the then Liberal Government. He also said:
This Government is going to grind Newfoundland further down, if it can do it.
Those were the quiet, unassuming words of the Minister of Justice at a time when the federal Liberal Government was introducing legislation which would restrict the growth of funding for post-secondary education.


James Douglas Manly: He has been muzzled.


Rodney Edward Murphy: It is interesting that that Minister, now muzzled, now demure, is not saying a thing when this Conservative Government is reducing funding for his home province even further. If the Liberals were grinding Newfoundland into the ground, where the heck are the Conservatives grinding Newfoundland to? What is below the ground? Are you grinding them into hell? Is that what you are saying?
We have quoted the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) when they were in opposition. They stood up and said that what the Liberals were doing was atrocious and should not be done. It was unilateral action which would hurt the health care system of this country. It would hurt young people, people in hospitals

May 6, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
and nursing homes. That is what they said then, and they called for co-operative federalism. They said the provinces should be listened to. They would have used the letters I received from the Minister of Finance of the home province of the Minister of Justice and said they were sincere.
I know I am running out of time and I cannot quote any more Conservative cabinet Ministers. However, let me tell you that the people of their home provinces will remember what type of hypocrites they were collectively.


Mr. Carlo Rossi (Bourassa):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to contribute to the debate on this important Bill to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act of 1977. This Bill would reduce payments by 2 per cent beginning in 1986, which means that, during the next five years, the Conservative Government would take away $8 billion from the provinces. This would be for the next five years.
Before the September 1984 elections, this Government made over 300 promises, including a commitment not to change the federal transfers to the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of this debate, I have seen no Minister or Government Member defend the provinces. I can see the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) looking at me, and I would like to tell him once more that he should at least have the heart or the courage to defend the provinces. However, I see that, like many others, he does not have the courage to speak and to keep the promises made in 1984.
Mr. Speaker, I see that there are two Members from Quebec in this House, but they have not had the heart to rise until now. However, I hope that they will now.
I also see the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay), who now takes it upon himself to make interjections. He has just woken up after sleeping in his seat for about an hour. It is time for you to defend your province!
Mr. Speaker, the Members for Quebec who are pretending-and I did say "pretending"-to defend our beautiful province have until 6 o'clock to act with courage and to show that, even though their leader, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), does not keep his promises, they are people of honour who have heart and who can defend Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, we saw what impact this decrease will have on the evening of the provincial Budget. We saw the impact of this $2 billion cutback when the Quebec Government was forced to impose a surtax on business benefits for the year 1986-87.
Such a surtax should bring in some $152 million during the current year, or an amount equal to the losses incurred as a result of the cuts made by this Tory Government, the so-called Government which is supposed to do everything, conclude
agreements with the provinces without cutting anything- however they were the first to deny it and break their promises.
Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I wanted to try and encourage the Members from Quebec to rise and take part in the debate. However, I feel that this Bill is very important- and again I invite the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay) who is busy gossiping over there to say a few words on behalf of the provinces and more especially on behalf of his own riding.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, it would perhaps be advisable to point out also to the Hon. Member that the reduction will affect post-secondary education, health costs, dental costs, etc.


An Hon. Member:: Louder again!


Carlo Rossi: The Hon. Member will have every opportunity until 6 o'clock to speak. But you are as dumb as an oyster. You do not have the guts to stand up and defend the provinces.
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere, to the Quebec Members and also to all Government Members: There was a September 4, 1984, but there will be a September 4,1988. It is fast coming and you will see what will happen then.


Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I also welcome this opportunity to take part in this debate-


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Deputy Speaker@: Order, please! Order, please! Order! Could we hear the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif), please?


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I also welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-96, which, as we have seen in the last few months, is just another unfair and extremely discriminatory measure.
Mr. Speaker, the title of the Bill is as follows: An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill is supposed to amend certain arrangement. I think we should remember the language used by this Government during the last election campaign. It was supposed to be the team that would bring harmony, communication and a climate of goodwill to its dealings with the taxpayers and the provinces. And now we have Bill C-96 amending certain agreements or arrangements that had been concluded between the parties concerned, that is, between the provinces and the federal Government.
Once again, we have here, at least in my humble opinion, a striking example of how this Government, which has now been in power for a year and a half, unilaterally attacks groups that are in no position to defend themselves. The injustice of it all is simply shocking-to decide unilaterally to recover millions of
May 6, 1986

dollars, and oblige the provinces to use their own taxation powers to compensate for foregone revenue so they can continue to provide health care services and finance postsecondary education.
This is not the only case where the provinces were taken by surprise, where in fact they were held hostages in a situation which is altogether unacceptable. Who can forget the promises of this Government - and my colleagues have already mentioned this - to provide direct assistance to pork producers, not to mention the sheep industry. Seeing the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay) reminds me of the Government promise to carry out a major project in his riding, but unfortunately he has not said a word about it since his election, and I am referring to the proposed phyto-protection laboratory in Victoriaville. There again they cut off $12 million without batting an eye.


Mr. Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mind your own business!


Alain Tardif: Another thing to keep in mind is what happened in the case of the sugar beet industry-


Maurice Tremblay: Mind your own business! You can't even look after your own riding.


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, referring to stabilization-


Maurice Tremblay: What a foul mouth!


Alain Tardif: You should be as aggressive in the House of Commons as you were with your association president! It might do wonders for the economy of your riding!
Mr. Speaker, I have here a table which shows in mathematical and monetary terms the impact this-


Maurice Tremblay: Dirty mouth! Brush your moustache and learn how to articulate!


Alain Tardif: -legislative measure would have in the Province of Quebec. I might point out that in 1986-87-


Maurice Tremblay: Sit down, foul mouth!


Alain Tardif: Because of the distance between the Hon. Member from Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay) and me, Mr. Speaker, I feel quite secure. He could not reach me with his fist. But I realize that if I were closer, he might probably blow his top as he did once before.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could we agree to return to the debate on Bill C-96? I should appreciate if Hon. Members on both sides ... The Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) has the floor.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act


Alain Tardif: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us will make sure that in 1986-87, Quebec-


Maurice Tremblay: You do not know what you are talking about, Tardif!


Alain Tardif: -will lose $82.3 million. If it continues like this, by 1991-92, the Quebec Government, already faced with a difficult situation due to a major deficit, and in great need of its equalization payments to insure often essential and vital services, stands to lose as much as $2,083 billion. And that is the measure which the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Tremblay) and his Quebec colleagues are willing to support, by keeping absolutely quiet, because they do not have enough courage to denounce it.
Mr. Speaker, there is also-
It would have been a lot wiser to speak out with your voice rather than with your fists, Sir. It would have been much more profitable for your political career!


Mr. Malepart:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) rises on a point of order.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, could you advise my honourable friend that he should mind what he says. I remind him that he is not in his office riding where once he could punch on the nose the chairman of his own county association.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I call both Hon. Members to order. Could we please let the Hon. Member for Richmond-Wolfe (Mr. Tardif) continue?


Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to bring to the attention of the House a statement made by the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, in which he stated that the Conservative group of Members who are representing, or have a mandate to represent, the interests of Quebec, had an obligation to react to the latest decision providing help to the Maritime potato growers while those in Quebec were totally ignored. Again, this is a shameful injustice which, unfortunately, not a single Member from Quebec raised or defended-
Mr. Speaker, in the budget brought down by the provincial Government last week, taxation measures had to be introduced unexpectedly to compensate for what the Province of Quebec would lose on equalization payments.
Mr. Speaker, it is my view that this measure, like many others, is a very clear example and a most obvious proof that this Goverment is much more concerned, much more ready to help multinational corporations, large banks, big corporations than small and average taxpayers. The legislation now before us, Bill C-96, is concrete evidence of this Tory Government's

May 6, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
propensity to launch an attack on those who unfortunately have no alternative but to live with those cuts.
We have now before us, Mr. Speaker, an amendment which in the circumstances seems very reasonable to me. It reads:
"This House refuses to continue the consideration of this Bill, the purpose of which is to unilaterally reduce federal payments to the provinces for postsecondary education and health services which are essential.
This does not seem to be an unreasonable suggestion, but I regret to say that we are alone with the New Democratic Party in raising the issues. And we are being faced with a shameless, shocking stonewalling by those whose role should be to defend and represent the interests of their respective provinces.
The proposal as it now stands is to effect a colossal $8 billion cut, and we have a flock of Members who, although they are a large number, let everything go by without any reaction, representation, or comment whatsoever. Besides, as indicated earlier by my colleagues, not a single Minister had the courage and fortitude to rise and attempt in any way to defend the provinces which, in the circumstances, are being led to an extremely significant impoverishment.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, the people who are listening to us are probably disappointed and even discouraged at the attitude of the Conservatives. Mr. Speaker, this Bill is very important, not only for our institutions and for our provinces, but also for the people in each of our constituencies. The purpose of this Bill is to reduce the amounts allocated to two extremely important sectors of which most people have benefited in the past, namely health care and education.
Mr. Speaker, egoistically, like the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) himself, and without telling the truth, this Government has decided unilaterally to reduce payments to the provinces for health care and education.
Mr. Speaker, who is now being held hostage by a Government which, a while ago, introduced legislation to help people with deposits of over $60,000 in certain banks? After this, we might well ask: What does being a Conservative mean? Who do the Conservatives represent? They represent the wealthy, Mr. Speaker. Once more, we have a Bill which clearly shows the attitude, the incompetence, the ignorance, the carelessness of the Conservatives because no Conservative from Quebec has risen to speak. In 1979, when the Liberals, with the help of the New Democratic Party, defeated the Conservative Government, six Members of Parliament from Quebec, six Members of the Social Credit, did what the Conservatives are now doing and refused to stand up. At the following elections, they were defeated and rejected so that there is no longer a single Social Credit Member in this House, Mr. Speaker.
I have just come back from a tour of Quebec in Trois-Rivieres, Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec City-


An Hon. Member:: There were not forty of you.


Jean-Claude Malépart: I see that they are beginning to wake up, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for Lotbiniere-


An Hon. Member:: He will be back.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, if Jean-Guy Dubois, the excellent Member for Lotbiniere, were here, he would have risen to defend the people of Quebec. He would not have left to give his President a bloody nose; he would have remained in this House to defend the population. This is what he would have done.


An Hon. Member:: More.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, let us see what impact this Bill will have if the Conservatives from all regions of Canada do not wake up. Our senior citizens will have to pay for the care they receive in hospitals or they will be refused admission to hospital because the provinces will not have enough funds to provide adequate services. Our young people are being abandoned and they do not have jobs because of the incompetence of this Government. Our youth will be even more disappointed now as the costs of post-secondary education will increase.
Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member who has just shouted could rise and speak to defend the interests of his constituents . . . Mr. Speaker, that is what those people cannot do.


Maurice Tremblay: You have been away.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere says I was away on a trip. I was on a trip in the Quebec City area, in your region, Mr. Speaker, in the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe and in Trois-Rivieres, to defend the interests of early retirees whose unemployment insurance benefits were savagely cut by your Government, Mr. Speaker. I was paying my own way on this trip, to defend the people of Lotbiniere who don't have a Member to defend them here in the House.


An Hon. Member:: Resign!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, we have the people of Quebec City and Mrs. Lalande who defends the rights of people in need, who asked me to rise in the House to defend them because there is no Member, not even a Minister in Quebec City to defend their rights-
Mr. Speaker, this is all very distressing. I remember newly elected Conservative Members saying that first day: It is our turn now. And I am sure some of them got elected for the sake of the patronage jobs they could hand out. I am sure that was their primary motive. Some even wrote a nice letter to their constituents saying that if they wanted their name on a contract they would have to do this and they would have to do that. But they never mentioned Bill C-96. They never said they would be cutting the indexation of Old Age Security pensions or levying a tax on drugs, Mr. Speaker. They were interested
May 6, 1986

in patronage. They beat the other guys and now they were top dog.


An Hon. Member:: Shame!


Jean-Claude Malépart: But when the interests of the province of Quebec are at stake... We see that the Minister of Finance, Mr. Levesque and Mr. Bourassa have levied a special tax on businesses because the federal Government cut $66 million from its equalization payments to the province.
As in every other case, Mr. Speaker, our beloved Prime Minister who is visiting Tokyo-our national master of ceremonies-said, with his hand on his heart: I promise you will not lose a cent. But in the future, the people .. . He did the same thing to the elderly. Remember what Mrs. Denis told him: Charlie Brown, you lied to us! He said the same thing to any number of people, and the provincial Governments have just been given a taste of the same thing.
The people listening to us today and Hon. Members in the House know perfectly well that it doesn't mean much when our beloved Prime Minister puts his hand on his heart.


An Hon. Member:: He doesn't have one!


An Hon. Member:: He has no heart!


Jean-Claude Malépart: As my hon. colleague said, he doesn't have one, Mr. Speaker. He puts his hand on his jacket.
Mr. Speaker, I wish a Conservative Member would stand up and tell us why he does not want to debate this Bill. Would it be that he does not agree with the Bill, that he is against it, that he thinks it is a shame that Quebecers are penalized once again, particularly since the Government recently had to find some money to help western Canada? It is as though Quebec were not even on the map. What is the use of defending the province? What are the Conservative Members doing here? I can remember that the former Member for Champlain did not hesitate to speak up. As everyone remembers, Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois was a staunch defender of farmers and Quebecers.


An Hon. Member:: He will be back!


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, why is it that not a single Conservative Member and Minister . .. True enough, the Ministers from Quebec get $40,000 more and ride in limousines, but their only job is to attend official ribbon-cutting ceremonies. Ribbon-cutting is the only responsibility left to the Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne). She gets $40,000 and a limousine to do that, Mr. Speaker, but what we are talking about is very important.
Our colleague from Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) has introduced an important amendment. Hon. Members ought to be able to stand up and convince their colleagues, at least those who are from Quebec. I can understand the Members from western Canada because they had all kinds of goodies, Mr. Speaker. But their Quebec colleagues never did get anything. There was Hyundai, but it was the Minister's wife who reaped
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
all the benefits. Quebec lost everything. We ended up with nothing. And when I see . . . Mr. Speaker, you are signalling there are two. Not two, but 58! When the Member for Duvernay came on the scene he said he would make the oil multinationals toe the line. Gas prices went up. Do you know what he did? He bought... He changed business and bought a Mr. Muffler franchise. And he muffled the 58 Quebec Members-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Let us get back to Bill C-96.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, they have been fitted with mufflers, they are unable to speak to Bill C-96. I would like to know why they cannot talk about it. Is it because they agree with the Bill? They are ashamed of their convictions and do not dare say so? Or would it be that they are against the Bill but are afraid of their leader? They are afraid of the Prime Minister or of the Deputy Prime Minister? Stand up on your own two feet! Show some guts! Quebecers are not afraid of anything! Be brave. Stand up, you are either for or against the Bill.
I saw a program where the Hon. Member for Blainville- Deux Montagnes (Mrs. Landry) was heard to say: We the women of the Conservative Party will be there to make decisions, not to have a good time. Mr. Speaker, she did not stand up once to defend her interests. While we are debating, she reads and nods. She should have the courage to rise and speak up.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude by reminding my Quebec Conservative colleagues and friends that in 1979 there were six Quebec Members in the corner over there, six Creditistes Members who did not have enough courage to speak up one way or another. They remained glued to their seats. The electors simply turfed them out. That is what is coming, I hope that is what will happen to you.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, we are currently debating a motion that this House declines to proceed with a Bill, the princple of which is to reduce unilaterally payments by the federal Government to the provinces for vital health care and post-secondary education services.
There are a number of things which are very much wrong with this Bill. I do not think we can stress too often one of the most serious failures of the Bill, that is, through this Bill the Government is proceeding unilaterally to cut some $8 billion out of moneys which would otherwise go to the provinces for worth-while programs such as health care and post-secondary education. The Government may argue that this measure was already announced, or at least foreshadowed in its May, 1985 Budget, but that is not really the case. The Budget Speech did refer to a reduction of the federal EPF contributions, but made no mention of the date on which it would take effect. If one refers to Table 2.1 of the fiscal plan and Table 2, Chapter 5, of

May 6, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
the Budget Papers published in May, 1985, one would find there no indication of a reduction for the fiscal year 1986-87. This shows that the Government was probably planning at that time to introduce changes at the end of the normal five-year term, that is, on April 1, 1987.
The Government waited until the Annual First Ministers' Conference, which was held on November 28 and 29, 1985, in Halifax, to make the formal announcement of specific changes and of the date on which they would take effect.
Why did the Government change its mind between the May 1985 Budget and the November 1985 Halifax Conference and decide to move the date ahead? To understand that move by the Government, we have to recall that this period coincides with the Government's decision to reimburse the uninsured depositors of the two failed banks, as a result of which the Government, I suggest, realized that it would not be able to achieve the deficit reduction objective it had set for itself. After bungling the bail-out of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank, the Government had to find the money somewhere to make up for its poor handling of that banking situation. It can therefore be argued that the depositors of the bankrupt banks were reimbursed, at least in part, by funds which would otherwise have been used to enhance the quality of our educational system and our health care services.
Finally, it should be noted that the February 1986 Budget pretty well ignored this new measure despite the fact that it is to take effect, if the House makes the mistake of approving it, on April 1, 1986.
Let me again stress, as has already been stressed in this debate, that the only reason offered by the Government to justify this cut-back is the effort which all Canadians and all provinces must make, so the Government claims, to reduce the federal deficit. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has acknowledged that he is transferring part of his deficit to the provinces, but he has argued that this transfer is a problem of lesser importance than that of the deficit. In other words, this heartless Government is cutting health care for seniors and for middle and lower-income Canadians and making it impossible for tens of thousands of middle and low-income young people to go to university. That does not matter so long as the Government can reduce the deficit. How cruel, how misguided and how wrong! Certainly, if one is concerned about the deficit, economic growth and the greater revenues which come from that, and having a more efficient, productive and healthy population, that is a better way of tackling the deficit, if it must be tackled at all, than by cutting $8 billion from moneys the federal Government had promised to the provinces. That was money which was going to be spent, and which would have been spent, to improve post-secondary education and health care, if not just to maintain existing standards for millions and millions of Canadians in every province.
The record is clear. Beginning with this Bill, the Government has acted unilaterally, without consent of the provinces,
and has failed to respect the tradition of federal-provincial agreements. The EPF Program is administered under a federal Act and we have to admit that technically speaking, it can be changed by the federal Parliament unilaterally without the formal consent of the provinces. However, the tradition has been to renegotiate, and I stress the word "renegotiate", these fiscal arrangements every five years.
This Act was amended for the first time in 1982 and the provincial Governments expected to be able to renegotiate shortly the new arrangements that would take effect as of April 1, 1987. The Conservative Government has thus failed to respect the long-standing tradition and has unilaterally announced amendments that would take effect a year ahead of the normal date of expiry of the agreement. No wonder that, when the federal Government announced its intentions at the federal-provincial conference, the representatives of the provinces unanimously rejected the federal proposal.
The premiers rejected the proposal, whether they were members of the Conservative Party or of other Parties. They rose to say that what the federal Government was doing was wrong. It was adding to the burden of the provinces the effort of the federal Government to cut the deficit. It was adding to the burden of the provinces the desires of the federal Government ahead of the responsibilities of the provinces to their populations; in effect, the same populations about which the federal Government should be concerned when it comes to maintaining and improving standards of health care and postsecondary education.
Once again, let us look at what the provinces will have to do as a result of the cuts in transfers of funds required by the provinces, cuts totalling $8 billion by 1991-92. What are the alternatives the provinces have? As a result of these cuts, the provinces will be forced to increase taxes as one alternative. Another alternative is to increase deficits and another would be to rethink priorities and cut back on services accordingly.
The Conservative Government might well be forcing provinces to reduce the number of hospital beds. The Conservative Government, through this legislation, might well be forcing the provinces to restrict the number of students who are admitted to universities and colleges across the country. The Conservative Government, through this legislation, might well be forcing the provinces to increase fees paid by consumers of provincial services. This might cause provinces to increase or institute hospital user fees and might force provinces to increase or institute tuition fees at universities and other post-secondary education institutions. Whatever method is adopted by the provinces, it is the individual taxpayer who will bear the cost of the cut-backs, and that without any benefit whatsoever accruing to the individual Canadian and his or her family.
It is very clear why we moved this motion. When we look at the evidence, we find that the Conservative Government broke its promise to consult with the provinces before doing anything like this. It broke its promise to develop and implement a new kind of harmony with the provinces. Instead, it has caused
May 6, 1986

dismay and shock, even on the part of Conservative provincial Governments. The provincial Governments have rejected this legislation unanimously. They have sent us a signal and we have to follow through with it by adopting this motion and then defeating this Bill.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I think we are entitled at least once during the afternoon to hear a truthful rendition of the actual facts and not the pious mouthings of the criminals opposite who have returned to the scene of their crime. Why does this Bill have to be proposed to the House? By the way, the only thing this Bill does is reduce the rate of growth in transfers from the Government of Canada to the Governments of the provinces over the next five years. It does not reduce the amount of money the provinces will receive for health care and post-secondary education.
Why is this Bill necessary? It is necessary because of the hon. gentlemen opposite. Here I am referring to Members of the Official Opposition, not Members of the New Democratic Party who never had any responsibility for governing this country, thank God. Therefore, I cannot address these comments to them. Members of the Official Opposition opposite formed a Government for 20 years and got the country so far in the red that the present administration has to do something to retrieve the financial Niagara of debt that was left behind.
The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi), in all his previous-


Carlo Rossi: We finally flushed you out, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: I never realized that he had a tongue until he went into Opposition. The Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte Marie (Mr. Malepart) was like a blushing bride for all his previous years in this institution. There was never a sound from him. All he did was nod his head and say yes whenever the Government proposed anything.


Carlo Rossi: We finally flushed you out. We finally did it. That's what we wanted.


John Carnell Crosbie: We see now the alternative there is to the present Government. When looking at the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte Marie and the Hon. Member for Bourassa, we can see what kind of Government they would give this country.
The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) was a Finance Minister in Quebec and at least he knows something of which he speaks. He was out in the private sector for a number of years and knows how badly his cohorts served this country. He realizes the need for this piece of legislation. This is Liberal legislation, legislation caused by the Liberal Government that preceded us. This is Trudeau legislation. This is Turner legislation because he sat by and allowed the hon. gentleman to do this when he was in power. This is Chretien legislation. This is Gauthier legislation.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Thanks, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: This is legislation caused and inspired by Gauthier. Attorney General Scott of Ontario does not know who Gauthier is, but I have been trying to tell him who Gauthier is. Gauthier is a Member-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Could the Minister please make a speech?


Carlo Rossi: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) on a point of order.


Carlo Rossi: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Hon. Member who has the floor to speak to Bill C-96. It seems to me it is important enough.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) has the floor.


John Carnell Crosbie: The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte Marie mentioned Mr. Muffler. I hope to God he goes to Mr. Muffler before he speaks here again in order to get himself muffled down a bit.


Carlo Rossi: What province are you from? Your Minister doesn't seem to know. You're not on the map.


John Carnell Crosbie: If the hon. gentleman had had a chance to be appointed to the Livestock Feed Board, he would have been gone before the last election as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The only reason that those two hon. gentlemen are still here is that they did not get to the trough of the Livestock Feed Board. They ran out of places too late for you guys.
This is Liberal legislation caused by the Liberal Party and its stewardship. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that when Liberal Members left office, they left us with a deficit of $34.5 billion? That is why this legislation is being introduced.
If we can introduce a note of sanity here for the first time this afternoon, this is a federation of 10 provinces, two territories and a federal Government. The provinces are very proud. They want to exercise their jurisdiction, and health services and education are both matters totally within the jurisdiction of the provinces. If we attempted to amend the BNA Act to remove any of that, they would howl like banshees. They would howl like weird will-o'-the-wisps, like the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie. They would howl like Mr. Muffler himself, if we attempted to take away any of their jurisdiction over health and education. They have the jurisdiction, yet it is the Government of Canada which is being abused here today by that great advocate of provincial

May 6, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
rights, the Liberal Party of Canada, about the fact that we are slowing down the rate of transfers to the provinces. Presumably-


Carlo Rossi: What was that you said?


John Carnell Crosbie: When the Hon. Member from la grosse bouche goes back to his district in the Province of Quebec, will he advocate to them that we remove jurisdiction for health from the province or that we remove jurisdiction for education from the province? No, la grosse bouche will not open his grosse bouche when he gets back to Quebec.


Carlo Rossi: En franfais.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: If you had only done that during the leadership, you would be Prime Minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: Had I shown this facility-


Carlo Rossi: You would be the Leader, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am only getting started. I am going to be here for a long time yet. Laurier had the 20th Century. I have the 21st.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Hon. gentlemen opposite do not realize that 23 per cent of the money which the Government of Canada is spending this year is going to pay interest on the Liberal debt. That 23 per cent is gone.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


John Carnell Crosbie: We cannot use it to improve health services, education or roads.


John V. Nunziata: What about bank bail-outs?


Carlo Rossi: Are you talking about the interest for Stevens?


John Carnell Crosbie: What about an operation on the honourable tongues opposite? In Newfoundland we have a dish called cod tongue. There are the cods and there are the tongues; they are both opposite. They have everything in the Liberal caucus. As I said, 23 per cent of all the money we spend this year goes in interest on the Liberal debt. That is why we had to propose this legislation to the House. That is why the House should pass it. That is why those hon. gentlemen should vote for it. They caused it. They left us in a position where 23 per cent of the $110 billion we are spending this year is on interest to bond holders, rather than being in a position to use it to improve educational facilities, hospital facilities, and other services in the country. They have done that dirty work, and they should now vote to pay for the dirty work.


Carlo Rossi: We finally got you going, John.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: More, more!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Minister is doing so much damage to his cause, his Party and his Government that the Official Oposi-tion would gladly give unanimous consent to allow him to speak until six o'clock.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Thank you.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there in fact unanimous consent to allow the Minister to continue for a minute?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Minister to contine for five more minutes?


An Hon. Member:: For 15 minutes.


Carlo Rossi: Your friends are on this side, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: I have consent to carry on.


John V. Nunziata: Let the clown carry on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Very well, the Hon. Minister of Justice has unanimous consent to continue for a few minutes.


John Carnell Crosbie: I will restrict myself to two or three minutes, Mr. Speaker. It is noticeable that the unofficial Opposition opposite, the New Democratic Party, has not said much this afternoon. That is because its chain has not yet been jerked by Shirley Carr. She has not indicated to the members of that Party what position they should take in this matter. I was down in Windsor a week ago and I told them the story of Bob White and the three dwarfs-the Hon. Members from Windsor, the Hon. House Leader of the Liberal Party-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Minister, but I doubt if this is relevant to Bill C-96.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I will leave the subject of Bob White and the three dwarfs-the Hon. Members from Windsor who are up every day here and the other distaff Member, the House Leader of the Official Opposition. I will leave that and simply say that since the CLC has not instructed New Democratic Members of Parliament on what position to take on this matter, they have had precious little to say. We hope that the message will get through to them by tomorrow and that they will be able to participate in the debate.
I do not know who has pulled your chain, Herb, but you are looking as though you are suffering a lot of pain at the moment. I believe the Hon. House Leader regrets the fact that I was given the chance to introduce Bob White and the three dwarfs to the House. I do not want to take unfair advantage of the hon. gentleman because I do not think he can survive to six o'clock if I continue. I thank the House for the three extra
May 6, 1986

moments I was given. I thank the House Leader opposite for the opportunity to point out to the House some of the problems which he is experiencing in his stewardship. Anyone who is a House Leader of a group which looks as though it has just broke out of the Montreal zoo has to be commiserated with.


An Hon. Member:: That is why you do not do well in Montreal, John.


John Carnell Crosbie: Or the Toronto zoo.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: On debate, the Hon. Member for Beaches (Mr. Young).


Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.


John Carnell Crosbie: Shirley Carr.


Neil Young: Shirley Carr sends her regards.


John Carnell Crosbie: On a point of order, I have something here I want to show to the House. It shows the great tit, the blue tit, the coal tit, the marsh tit, and the crested tit. Which are you?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Neil Young: "Mr. Speaker, this is a deplorable piece of legislation because the principle of it is one of betrayal. The Bill betrays the provinces of Canada, the provincial Governments of Canada and betrays the universities of Canada. It betrays post-secondary institutions of Canada. It betrays the young people of Canada and it illustrates rank hypocrisy in the actions of the Government".


Rodney Edward Murphy: Who said that?


Neil Young: "The House is discussing a Bill to reduce federal contributions to post-secondary education-for the fiscal year ending next March and to reduce the federal contribution to post-secondary education by $260 million in the next fiscal year starting April 1, 1984. Is that not rank hypocrisy? Is it not an illustration of the rottenness and internal self-contradiction of the people now administering the affairs of Canada? ... That is the rankest hypocrisy... Whom does it affect the most? Whom is this the most crippling blow to? It is the most crippling blow to the Atlantic provinces and, in particular to the Province of Newfoundland. It is a blow to those provinces which are financially strapped, and the four Atlantic provinces are among the most financially strapped of any of the provinces of Canada. This is a vicious blow to those provinces just when they need federal financial assistance, and more of it, to help their post-secondary education system. Just when they have fantastic highs of youth unemployment and unemployment generally, this Government reduces what they are to receive, using the fiction that it has to apply a six and five program to contracts which it entered into with the provinces in 1977. The Government has turned its back on its commitment and asks us to pass this legislation".
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Mr. Red way: You have your back to me.


Neil Young: I am sorry about that. "What is the effect on Newfoundland? In the year which is ending now, Newfoundland will receive $2.7 million less than it would have received for post-secondary education. I believe in the year 1984-85, next year, when Newfoundland will be more in need of educational and training services than ever, there will be a reduction, I believe of $6.1 million. The Province of Newfoundland, already strapped, already with a current account deficit, already with the highest per capita debt in Canada, is not going to be assisted by this Government. This Government is going to grind Newfoundland further down, if it can do it". I could not have said it better. The words I have just repeated were those of the present Minister of Justice, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), in the House, as reported in the Debates for February 7, 1984 when the Liberal gang attempted to do exactly what the Tory gang is attempting to do today. There is not much difference between both of them.
I should like to refer to a letter from the Minister of Finance for the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador who wrote to the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) on April 22, 1986 in which he commented on the legislation presently before the House. He said:
Dear Mr. Murphy,
Premier Peckford has asked me to reply to your letter of April 9th concerning Bill C-96.
As no doubt you are aware, there has been extensive discussions of the matters covered by Bill C-96 at the official and ministerial level between the Federal and all Provincial orders of Government. These discussions included vigorous protests by the latter over the Federal intention to alter current EPF funding arrangements prior to May 1987.
No doubt you are also aware that discussions are continuing concerning an amendment to the Federal/Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal PostSecondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977 which would put in place a further five-year arrangement for the period 1987 to 1992. These discussions have not yet concluded. The Government of Newfoundland and Labrador regards this larger amendment of very great importance for the continued co-operation between both orders of Government for the joint funding of our Education and Health systems. For this reason we will persist in making presentations to the federal Government detailing the particular problems and needs of our Province in those regards.
I trust 1 have given you the information which you are seeking.
I thought it was important that the House be made aware of such a letter. The impact this will have on Newfoundland and other Atlantic provinces, as well as other provinces across Canada, will be devastating on the ability of medicare to provide adequate service to the people of Canada. It will be devastating to a lot of young people, one of our greatest natural resources, in being able to afford higher education because of what the Government is doing to the transfer of funds for post-secondary education financing.
It is rank hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member for St. John's West properly and adequately described this measure in
13024

May 6, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
1984 when he talked about what the Liberals were doing and what the present Government is now doing.
By the end of 1991, just to illustrate the total impact this measure will have on the provinces, Newfoundland is to lose $128 million; Prince Edward Island is to lose $27.5 million; Nova Scotia $195 million; New Brunswick is to lose $156.8 million; Quebec is to lose $1,435.4 million; Ontario, my own province, is to lose $2,014 million.


Alan Redway: $400 million more than last year.


Neil Young: I am glad to hear my friend, the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) mention that because in the Newspeak of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and Conservative Members of the Government, they have tried to defend what the Government is doing. They said all they are trying to do is to moderate the transfer of money from the federal treasury to the provincial treasury.
They can use all the moderation they want in the language they use to describe what they are trying to do, but the fact is there will be a reduction of $5 billion from the federal Treasury to the provincial governments over the next five years for health care delivery and post-secondary education purposes.
The Minister of Finance, when he was the Finance critic for the Official Opposition, called them cuts when the Liberals attempted to use the same type of newspeak terminology to excuse themselves from what they were doing. A $5 billion cut over five years is a cut. By any other name it is a cut, a cut of $5 billion-


Alan Redway: It is $90 billion more.


Neil Young: -that will not be used for educational purposes for the young people, and it will not be used to provide good medical services to all Canadians on an equal basis, regardless of where they live. If you happen to live in Newfoundland and Labrador, you will be entitled to a lesser degree of medical services than you would be in a better off province. That is what the measure means. It is a cut of $5 billion.


Alan Redway: It is $90 billion more.


Neil Young: As I said before, the Minister of Finance properly described this when he was in Opposition as sheer hypocrisy. I see that my time is up. I thank Hon. Members for listening.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I have prepared a few notes for another speech on Bill C-96, but considering the little time I have left and especially the outrageous comments we heard by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie), I would prefer to raise some of the points he made in his speech.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, you may have noticed, as all other Members of this House may have done, that when the
Minister of Justice rose to speak just now, he happened to be the very first Government Member and the first Minister to speak to this subject before the House.
The Bill was introduced in the House by the Parliamentary Secretary. I was there. I remember clearly it was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Communications, the Hon. Member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott). There wasn't a single Minister who had the guts to rise in the House and introduce a Bill as sordid as this one. And now, after several days of debate, we see the Minister of Justice rise in the House and take ten minutes or so to make an outrageous speech, livened up with jokes that would be more appropriate in a zoo than in the serious debate we are having today.
The Minister started by explaining why the Bill was proposed in the House in the first place. According to him, it was to make up for the mistakes of the previous Government which had accumulated deficit after deficit. Well, my opinion is slightly different, and I would say that the Government has added to the deficit by introducing measures to suit its friends.
Mr. Speaker, the Government's decision to give people in a position to make capital gains in this country a lifetime exemption of up to $500,000 will cost Canadian taxpayers, both rich and poor, something like $4.5 billion between now and 1990. And I don't want to hear the excuse that payments to the provinces are only being cut back in an attempt to reduce a deficit that was accumulated by the previous Government, because I would say to the Government: Today, you give handouts to your friends, and you ask the little man, the average taxpayer and low-income Canadians to foot the bill.
Let us talk about the rescue operations for the two banks that went belly up in western Canada. When the Government came to the House begging for billions, it was to bail out people with deposits in excess of $60,000, not ordinary people who were already covered under deposit insurance.


An Hon. Member:: Ordinary Canadians.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the debt is shifted over to the provinces for payment, and this is one way of compensating for the gifts given by the Government to its friends, high income people. I could go on and on about this. I do not have much time left but before resuming my seat, Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that the changes to the national energy policy - we all know this - will bring billions of dollars in profits to the multinationals whose first consideration is not to look after the needs of Canadians. Such are the real objectives of the Government across the aisle. It expects the provinces and individual Canadians who can hardly make ends meet to pay for its lavish gifts to its friends. That is the truth! When he spoke that is the truth the Minister of Justice should have told instead of clowning around.
May 6, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Nickerson):: The Hon. Member will have six minutes available to him when the debate on this matter recommences.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to comment further on the Rural and Native Housing Program operated by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. This program was designed to ensure adequate housing for low income people living in rural areas and small communities. The federal Government funds 75 per cent of the project and the province contributes the remaining 25 per cent. The program was established under Section 40 of the National Housing Act over 10 years ago. In Ontario, rural and native housing projects are administered through centrally located CMHC offices. It was a good idea which lacked consultation. That is why I rose in the House earlier to ask the Miniser responsible for CMHC a question, and it is why I rise now. My colleagues here and my constituents know only too well that this program has not been working properly and that serious revisions in the delivery and supervision of this program are needed.
The problem began with the centrally located administration of this program. The central office had little, if any, previous contact with the various communities in which rural and native housing projects were placed. An occasional visit was all that the client and the community received. The community was not involved in the selection process for either the client or property, but they were the ones who had to live with the situation. Decisions were made by people outside of the community.
That insensitivity is now going to stop. The Minister assured me, following my representation to him and my later questioning in the House of Commons, that CMHC has placed increased emphasis on involving municipalities in the Rural and Native Housing Program delivery schedule. CMHC personnel will now meet with municipal councils prior to introducing a rural and native housing project into each municipality. The client selection process and the number and type of units which CMHC would like to deliver in the municipality will be discussed. Such meetings will increase the municipal council's knowledge of the program and, hopefully,
Adjournment Debate
answer any questions council members may have. To continue a good exchange of information, CMHC managers will meet at least once a year with local councils to discuss any problems which may have developed during that year.
One of my constituents put the problem very well as follows:
I am not opposed to government assistance to low income earners. Low income earners struggling to make ends meet and renovating old homes, trying to make them liveable, should undoubtedly have Government assistance. Proper policing could make this an excellent Government program.
Once a Rural and Native Housing Project is in the area, it seems that enforcing of the guidelines of the program is left to the honour system. That may be fine in a perfect society but, unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect society. People could take advantage of this program and the hardworking Canadian taxpayers who provide their own shelter for their families would be at a disadvantage. Fortunately, with increased municipal consultation, the administration of the rural and native housing program will be enhanced.
Guidelines and the intent of the Rural and Native Housing Program must be followed. It is vital that the people involved, the client and the participating community, know the boundaries within which it operates. This is a good program and it would be unfortunate if it were cancelled because of abuse.
Another problem was raised by a constituent who is concerned about what we are teaching our children. I quote as follows:
The newest and best house in the area is given to an unwed mother of one. She has never worked .. . What will we tell our daughters? "Don't get married. Have a baby and the Government will keep you and give you a new modern home better than a husband could provide".
The Rural and Native Housing Program started off as an attempt to encourage people, to give them incentive and initiative and an opportunity to take pride in their home. These noble ideals fall by the wayside when the program is abused. Where is the incentive to work toward owning your own home when the Government will buy one, and sometimess a well-above-average home for the area, for only 25 per cent of your income? There is concern that we are showing our citizens that work is not always rewarded. The average Canadian who works hard to afford a down payment and then scrimps and saves to meet monthly mortgage payments, often at very high interest rates, becomes very discouraged.
I am not suggesting the program be cancelled. No one, myself included, feels that the Government should not help those in need. The Rural and Native Housing Program is designed to assist low-income earners in need. Last year in my riding, approximately 40 per cent of the RNH clients were fully employed low-income earners. That is exactly the kind of people who deserve assistance in purchasing a home. However, it is important to ensure that our social programs are not abused. After 10 years of this program, it was time for a review so that changes for the better can be made. I would like to see increased emphasis on helping people renovate their

May 6, 1986
Adjournment Debate
homes. Another possibility is to have the rent-to-own principle become a higher priority. It would give people a chance to prove they can be responsible and have a healthy respect for their property. Shelter is an important factor in the quality of life Canadians have come to expect. It is vital to remember that it is a privilege to live in a fine house, not a right.
I would like to thank the Minister for listening to my concerns and those of my constituents and for improving this Rural and Native Housing Program.


Mr. Joe Price (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister responsible for CMHC, I would like to respond further to the matter raised by the Hon. Member on March 6 of this year and again today. It concerns the consultation and participation by Members of Parliament and municipal and local representatives in the delivery of the Rural and Native Housing Program.
The Minister appreciates the Hon. Member raising this matter. He also appreciates the opportunity to comment on this program. The Minister was already aware of some of the concerns expressed. He had already instructed CMHC officials to thoroughly review the matter. On his behalf, I am pleased to say that several important initiatives will be undertaken by CMHC to address the concerns expressed. Some of those concerns were mentioned by the Hon. Member.
CMHC will place increased emphasis on involving the municipalities in the Rural and Native Housing Program delivery schedule. Before introducing units into a municipality, CMHC will consult with the municipal council to thoroughly explain the program's objectives, the client selection process, and the number and type of units it proposes to deliver in the muncipality. This will increase the council's knowledge and support of the program and answer any questions the council may have. As well, where the program is already in place, CMHC officials will meet periodically with the local council to discuss any problems which may have occurred.
CMHC will also be looking at additional rental units and the acquisition of suitable existing houses rather than new construction. As well, CMHC is undertaking increased client counselling to ensure that clients are aware of their responsibilities with respect to property maintenance.
Under the agreement signed with the Province of Ontario on February 28, 1986, CMHC will continue to deliver this program this year. On behalf of the Minister, I can assure the Hon. Member that there was extensive consultation with several interested native and non-native groups prior to implementing the new program directions. The opportunity for continued consultation is always available and welcome.
1 thank you for the opportunity to respond to this issue, and I thank the Hon. Member for raising it.
[ Translation]


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-DATE OF DECISION TO APPLY REGULATIONS WITH REGARD TO EARLY RETIREES-ENQUIRY HOW MINISTER CAN PRETEND TO HAVE INFORMED THE BENEFICIARIES IN ADVANCE
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, on April 17 I put a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) concerning the date of the decision to apply regulations with regard to early retirees. The Minister gave me the usual answer we have been hearing for months, namely that the decision had been made in November 1984.
Mr. Speaker, in my question I referred to a letter from the Minister of Employment and Immigration, dated November 26, 1985, several months before the effective date, one month and several days, to be exact, a letter in answer to a letter from the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue at the time. In the penultimate paragraph, the Minister said, and I quote:
I would also like to mention that the regulations as such have yet to receive final approval by the Government. Consequently, the specific details of their application have yet to be determined. I am therefore not in a position to answer your question about applications that will already be in effect on January 5, 1986, and those filed after that date.
There, Mr. Speaker, you have the crux of the matter. It is true in principle that those measures were announced in the economic statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in November 1984. After that, we waited until January 1986 to implement the regulations, but we never told the people, those who are supposed to go on advanced retirement, whether those regulations would be implemented retroactively.
I was on the Quebec tour with my colleague for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) and, at each meeting we attended people were not opposing the Government's decision to impose such regulations. What people were against was retroactivity. It would seem that a number of companies were in touch with the Department, some even contacted a few MP's. There were very clear responses. The Minister herself, in her letter of November 26, did not know at that time whether it would be applied retroactively or not.
There would seem to be 40,000 people, at least 13,000 of them in Quebec, who were affected by those regulations. Those people would never have gone on early retirement, they would never have accepted their company's offer had they known that one or two months later their unemployment insurance benefits would be stopped. There lies the whole question.
Again, it is clear ... I have here a copy of a telegram dated December 30, 1985, from the Director of Benefit programs to Manpower and Unemployment Insurance Centre Offices, and I quote: "The new regulations on pension income have been adopted and will come into force on January 5, 1986, as
May 6, 1986

anticipated. A stuffer advising claimants of the changes made by the new regulations will be inserted in mailings starting from December 29, 1985. Further instructions to follow".
That was on December 30. I checked with the Unemployment Insurance Office in my constituency on December 30, no information was available as to whether that was retroactive or not.
We have been putting the question for months to the Minister, asking that those regulations be rescinded, unless they are not retroactive. The answer is that everything is before the Forget Commission. By golly, if you want something to be studied, let it be studied. And once a report is submitted, a response, then you should act. And I agree as to the substance of the case, that if benefits were to be paid to someone going on early retirement or not, this is a question that should be considered, and I am anxiously awaiting the Forget Commission's report.
However, while this principle is being considered, it is unfair to withdraw benefits from people who were not aware of what would happen when they took an early retirement, and it is very obvious from the letters of the companies and the statements of those involved that they were not aware of the situation. The Minister herself did not know on November 26 whether this rule would apply retroactively or not. From what we have heard when we were there, this system is penalizing people who cannot afford it and who will lose $200 or $300 a week while still having to pay unemployment insurance contributions. They will certainly not be able to live on their early retirement pension. They will have to go back on the labour market and to pay unemployment insurance contributions even though they can never collect.
I think that this decision is unfair and that the Canadian workers, and especially these people, did not deserve such a treatment. To my knowledge, it is the first time that such a rule is applied retroactively. In addition, when the notice of application of this rule was sent out on December 30, 1985, no instructions were provided.
Mr. Speaker, this shows that, maybe not voluntarily, but perhaps because she was badly advised, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) made a mistake, and the right thing for her to do would be to make an announcement and withdraw this rule, at least for those who applied before December 5 or during the fall of 1985. It is clear that these people were not aware of this rule in the fall of 1985 because they would never have taken the chance of seeing their unemployment insurance benefits withdrawn two weeks or one month later.
1 hope, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary will be able to announce that the Minister has come back to reason and withdrawn this rule.
Adjournment Debate


Joseph Price: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) has already stated on many occasions, changes to the pension income were announced on November 8, 1984, by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his Economic Statement.
As the House is aware, Cabinet decided on December 20, 1984, to postpone the implementation of the changes on earnings on separation to March 31, 1985, with some exemptions, and to postpone the implementation for pension income to January, 1986, without giving any other exemptions.
The amendments to the regulations dealing with pension income were approved by the Governor General in Council on December 20, 1985, and those amendments were in line with the Cabinet decision, which was to apply the new rule to all claimants in receipt of a pension income without exception.
All Canadians were informed of the coming changes through public statements and a press release. Those who were already UI recipients received a notice in late December, 1985, and early January, 1986, informing them of the changes and asking them to report their pension income on their bi-weekly reports as of January 5, 1986.
It must be noted that according to Privy Council Office rules, the content of a regulation cannot be divulged between the Department of Justice clearance and the approval by the Governor General in Council.
When the Hon. Member originally asked the question on April 17, the Minister indicated that she had referred this particular matter to the Forget Commission for consideration, that she is awaiting the results of that review and will respond in kind.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT-INTRODUCTION OF AMENDMENTS- MINISTER'S POSITION.
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, on a number of occasions I have risen in the House to share with the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) and other colleagues my concerns and the concerns of the residents of Don Valley East about the Young Offenders Act.
Let me first state that I am totally supportive of the basic principles and philosophy of this progressive Act. The four principles that underline this legislation are: one, that young people are responsible for their actions; two, that young people enjoy rights protected under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; three, that society has a right to be protected from criminal behaviour; and finally, that young people have special needs because they are at various stages of development and maturity.

May 6, 1986
Adjournment Debate
I know I am not alone in welcoming this modern piece of legislation. I think it does not speak very well of the fact that our laws have not changed for some 60 years in this regard. This Act, as you know, Mr. Speaker, replaces the Juvenile Delinquents Act.
On November 28, 1985, I asked the Solicitor General when we could expect amendments to the Young Offenders Act to address those areas where problems have arisen in actual practice. I am very pleased that such amendments were tabled in the House on April 30, 1986. There are several areas of particular concern which have emerged over the two years since the Young Offenders Act was proclaimed in April of 1984. One such area is that the authorities have found it difficult under the Act to deal effectively with young offenders who have violated parole conditions or other dispositions of the court. The proposed amendment will streamline the process to allow for quick police action in such cases.
Another area identified by police officials as causing undue difficulty is the procedures concerning pre-trial detention. I have spoken on several occasions with Inspector Jim Clarke, the head of the Youth Bureau of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Department. The procedures requiring the separate detention of those over 12 and those under 12, although necessary, are too inflexible. One case he cited involved two brothers, one over 12 and one under 12, who could not be sent home in the same police cruiser because of the procedural requirement. It is my understanding that the amendment, while adhering to the important principle that adults and young people should be kept separate in detention and custody, will allow police more flexibility in dealing with young offenders in cases such as the one I previously mentioned.
Professionals who have been working with the Young Offenders Act have found that the prohibition of publication of information concerning a young offender has, in some circumstances, created an unreasonable risk to the public. For example, when a dangerous young offender escapes custody and is at large, publication of information can be vital in warning the public and in aiding the police to apprehend the offender.
Much public attention was focused on the maximum sentence of three years which could be imposed on someone tried and convicted under the Young Offenders Act, especially after a court decision in a Scarborough murder case in which a 14 year old was convicted of three murders and sentenced to the maximum of three years. Cases involving young people who are involved in particularly violent crimes can be tried in adult courts if the Crown Attorney so chooses. The amendments proposed by the Solicitor General allow for courts to impose consecutive sentences for new crimes.
The retention of records relating to young offenders also became an issue during the two years since the proclamation of the Young Offenders Act. In a celebrated case in Orangeville, records and psychiatric assessments of a young man found not
guilty of murder by reason of insanity could not be released to the hospital to which he had been sent. The amendment to allow more flexibility in maintenance and destruction of records is well taken.
Law enforcement professionals have also had some problems with how to deal with offenders under the age of 12. This problem was brought home to me by one of my constituents, Mrs. McCullough, whose cottage in the Port Parry area was broken into and vandalized by two young girls aged 10 and 12. Mrs. McCullough is concerned, and I share her concern, that these young girls may not be deterred from repeating their crime. Our home was broken into a few years ago and we were told it was broken into by young people under the age of 12. I feel we must keep in mind the number one objective with respect to youngsters under 12, and that is that they be rehabilitated. I believe that is an important aspect of this Act.
Individuals who counsel or encourage children under the age of 12 to commit crimes are committing a serious offence against the children and society and I am pleased that the Criminal Code will be amended to allow for criminal prosecution of such people. The Young Offenders Act does not deal with children under 12 years. Last November, the Ontario Legislature enacted the Child and Family Services Act which deals with children under 12 years and the legal system. Let us hope that this legislation will help those children who come into conflict with the law to change their ways before criminal activity becomes a habit. I must point out that Ontario, regrettably, was the last province to bring in such legislation, even though it was told that federal legislation would come in in 1984.
In summary, I have followed the Young Offenders Act with great interest since I was elected to the House. I have attended consultation meetings with law enforcement professionals such as Metropolian Toronto Police Chief Marks, Inspector Clarke of the Youth Bureau and representatives of the various social agencies such as the John Howard Society. I was pleased to be present when the Solicitor General announced the amendments to the Young Offenders Act in Toronto on April 30, 1986.
From these experiences and from discussions I have had with my constituents and others about the Young Offenders Act, I believe it is a good Act and a real improvement. While there have been some initial problems, these amendments should help resolve them. We just need a little bit more time and experience for everyone to appreciate the full value and thrust of the legislation. I commend the Solicitor General for acting so quickly on these much needed changes.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the question put by the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell), I would like to make a few brief comments at this time on behalf of the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty), reserving a fuller explanation of the proposed changes to the Young Offenders
May 6, 1986

Act for second reading stage and study by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Shortly after the Solicitor General was sworn into office, he promised to amend this Act. The improvements contained in Bill C-106 respond to the concerns identified during national consultations undertaken by the Minister with concerned citizens, juvenile justice professionals and provincial administrators. A federal-provincial meeting of Ministers responsible for juvenile justice held in Vancouver on February 11, 1986, also resulted in an endorsement of the proposals. During these consultations, the Solicitor General found widespread support for the principles of the Act, despite some concern about a few of its provisions.
The proposed changes would allow for the publication of the identity of dangerous young offenders. No longer will they be able to hide their identity from the public at large. The changes will allow for consecutive sentences totalling more than three years where a young person commits a subsequent offence while still subject to an earlier sentence. They will ensure that the police have adequate access to records for continuing investigations, will create minimum standards regarding the use of records and will ensure that records are kept in cases of acquittal by reason of insanity. These measures will address current problems in the Act's records maintenance
Adjournment Debate
and destruction provisions, problems that have interfered with effective administration of justice and law enforcement.
The proposed changes will permit the efficient and effective enforcement of probation orders and other non-custodial sentences. There is now no provision under the Act empowering police to intervene quickly and make an arrrest when a young offender fails to comply with the conditions of a probation order. This limit has caused difficulties for correctional agencies and courts as well as police. The proposed changes will modify the provisions of current law on the testimony of children and on detention prior to sentencing. They will clarify that any adult or young person involving children in criminal behaviour is subject to prosecution. This is an important aspect of the Bill, Mr. Speaker. They will resolve several technical, administrative and procedural problems. It is my hope that this Bill will receive rapid passage through Parliament with the support of all Parties.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Nickerson):: 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 6:29 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

May 6, 1986

[Stage Direction]
Certified to be a true copy of a Minute of a Meeting of the Committee of the Privy Council, approved by Her Excellency the Governor General on the first day of May, 1986.
The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, advise:
1.	that in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Prime Minister or in the event of his being unable to perform the functions of his office
(a)	the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Erik Nielsen, or
(b)	in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Erik Nielsen or in the event of his being unable to perform the functions of the office of the Prime Minister, the next Minister named in order of priority in the list of Ministers set out in Schedule A who is in the National Capital Region and is able to perform the functions of the Office of the Prime Minister,
be authorized to act for the Prime Minister;
2.	that in the absence from the National Capital Region of a Minister whose name is set out in Column 11 of an item of the Schedule B, or in the event of that Minister being unable to perform the functions of his Office, the Minister whose name is set out in Column III of the item be authorized to act for the Minister named in Column II in respect of the Office set out in Column 1 of the item;
3.	that in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Ministers named in Columns II and III of an item of the Schedule B, or in the event of both of those Ministers being unable to perform the functions of their Office, the Minister whose name is set out in Column IV of the item be authorized to act for the Minister named in Column II in respect of the Office set out in Column 1 of the item;
4.	that in the absence from the National Captal Region of the Ministers named in Columns II, III and IV of an item of the Schedule B, or in the event of all those Ministers being unable to perform the functions of their Office,
(a)	the Prime Minister,
(b)	in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Prime Minister or in the event of the Prime Minister
being unable to perform the functions of his Office, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Erik Nielsen, or (c) in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Erik Nielsen, or in the event of both of them being unable to perform the functions of their Office, the next Minister named in order of priority in the list of Ministers set out in Schedule A, who is in Ottawa and is able to perform the said functions, be authorized to act for the Minister named in Column II in respect of the Office set out in Column I of that item;
5.	that, where an Office set out in Column I of an item of Schedule B is vacant, the Minister whose name is set out in Column III of that item be authorized to act in the Office of the Minister whose Office is set out in Column I of that item;
6.	that, where an Office set out in Column I of an item of Schedule B is vacant, in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Minister whose name is set out in Column III of that item, or in the event of that Minister being unable to perform the functions of the Office set out in Column I of that item, the Minister whose name is set out in Column IV of that item be authorized to act in the Office of the Minister whose Office is set out in Column I of that item; and
7.	that, where an Office set out in Column I of an item of Schedule B is vacant, in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Ministers named in Columns III and IV of that Schedule, or in the event of those Ministers being unable to perform the functions of their Office,
(a)	the Prime Minister,
(b)	in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Prime Minister or in the event of the Prime Minister being unable to perform the functions of his Office, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Erik Nielsen, or
(c)	in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Erik Nielsen, or in the event of both of them being unable to perform the functions of their Office, the next minister named in order of priority in the list of Ministers set out in Schedule A, who is in Ottawa and is able to perform the said functions,
be authorized to act for the Minister named in Column II in respect of the Office set out in Column I of that item.
May 6, 1986

[Stage Direction]
The Hon. E. Nielsen The Right Hon. J. Clark The Hon. F. MacDonald The Hon. J. Crosbie The Hon. D. Mazankowski The Hon. E. MacKay The Hon. J. Epp The Hon. S. Stevens The Hon. R. Hnatyshyn The Hon. R. de Cotret The Hon. M. Wilson The Hon. P. Carney The Hon. M. Masse The Hon. M. Cote The Hon. G. Hees The Hon. R. La Salle The Hon. J. Wise The Hon. D. Crombie The Hon. H. Beatty The Hon. J. Murta The Hon. H. Andre The Hon. O. Jelinek The Hon. T. Siddon The Hon. C. Mayer The Hon. W. McKnight The Hon. W. McLean The Hon. T. McMillan The Hon. A. Bissonnette The Hon. B. Bouchard The Hon. A. Champagne The Hon. J. Kelleher The Hon. R. Layton The Hon. B. McDougall The Hon. G. Merrithew The Hon. M. Vezina The Hon. S. Mclnnes The Hon. F. Oberle
[Stage Direction]
May 6, 1986

[Stage Direction]
Column I	Column II	Column III	Column IVOffice	Name	Acting Minister	Second Acting Minister1.	Minister of Agriculture	J. Wise	C. J. Mayer	G. S. Merrithew2.	Minister of Communications	M. Masse	B. Bouchard	F. Oberle3.	Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs	M. Cote	R. R. de Cotret	T. M. McMillan4.	Minister of Employment and Immigration	F. I. MacDonald	W. F. McLean	A. Champagne5.	Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources	P. Carney	R. E. Layton	D. E. Crombie6.	Minister of the Environment	T. M. McMillan	T. E. Siddon	J. Wise7.	Secretary of State for External Affairs	C. J. Clark	J. F. Kelleher	M. V6zina8.	Minister of Finance	M. H. Wilson	B. J. McDougall	R. R. de Cotret9.	Minister of Fisheries and Oceans	T. E. Siddon	E. H. Nielsen	T. M. McMillan10.	Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development	D. E. Crombie	J. Epp	P. Carney11.	Minister of Justice and Attorney General	J. C. Crosbie	J. F. Kelleher	R. J. Hnatyshyn12.	Minister of Labour	W. H. McKnight	F. 1. MacDonald	A. Champagne13.	Minister of National Defence	E. H. Nielsen	H. Andre	C. J. Clark14.	Minister of National Health and Welfare	J. Epp	O. J. Jelinek	D. E. Crombie15.	Minister of National Revenue	E. M. Mac Kay	M. Cote	B. J. McDougall16.	President of the Privy Council	R. J. Hnatyshyn	E. M. MacKay	J. C. Crosbie17.	Minister of Public Works	R. La Salle	S. Mclnnes	W. H. McKnight18.	Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion	S. M. Stevens	P. Carney	A. Bissonnette19.	Minister of State for Science and Technology	F. Oberle	S. M. Stevens	M. Masse20.	Secretary of State of Canada	B. Bouchard	O. J. Jelinek	J. Murta21.	Solicitor General of Canada	H. P. Beatty	J. C. Crosbie	R. J. Hnatyshyn22.	Minister of Supply and Services	S. Mclnnes	R. La Salle	D. F. Mazankowski23.	Minister of Transport	D. F. Mazankowski	J. Wise	C. J. Mayer24.	President of the Treasury Board	R. R. de Cotret	M. H. Wilson	H. P. Beatty25.	Minister of Veterans Affairs	G. H. Hees	E. H. Nielsen	H. Andre
Wednesday, May 7, 1986