1986-04-28

Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Governement's response to the twelve following petitions: Nos,331-392 to 331-398 inclusive, 331-408, 331-409, 331-417, 331-418 and 331-420.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding to Statements, since I gather there is one, I think the House should be advised that there is a glitch. Today the Order Paper and Notices contains two errors. Notices pursuant to Standing Order 39 projecting Private Members' Business were omitted in error, and recorded divisions on Bill C-87, which were disposed of on Thursday, April 24, remain listed on the Notice Paper.
The first error will be corrected in tomorrow's Order Paper. As to the second, since notice was given of the Private Members' Business for today on Thursday and Friday last and the correct motion for today's business is set out in this day's projected Order of Business, the Chair intends to proceed at 5 o'clock p.m. to Private Members' Business and to call the order at the top of the list of the order of precedence standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) and properly listed in the body of the Order Paper.
That is a technical way of saying that the projected Order of Business is correct. There is a printing error in the last section of the Order Paper under the notices section, which can be found at pages XXV and XXVI.


OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak of the shocking toll of accidents and illnesses that continue to occur in Canadian work places. In this regard, I would draw Member's attention to the Canadian Labour Congress' decision to observe this day as a day of mourning.
The personal price of workplace injury ranges from the initial pain of injury through the helplessness of disability to the ultimate price of death from physical injury or industrial disease.
Despite the genuine efforts of Governments and industry and the increasing involvement of organized labour, the human and physcal costs of work related injuries and illnesses have continued to remain high. In 1984, one Canadian in nine suffered a work related injury, 730 were killed and 16.6 million work days were lost at an estimated cost of $12 billion.
It was on this day 70 years ago that the Ontario legislature gave third reading to a Bill that introduced the collective liability system of mutual insurance under The Workmens' Compensation Act. Since that time the provinces and the federal Government have become increasingly involved in attempting to regulate a safe work environment and in reducing the financial burden of being injured at work.
Federal initiatives in the field of occupational safety and health include the amendments to Part IV of the Canada Labour Code which were proclaimed on March 31, and the leadership role Labour Canada and Consumer and Corporate Affairs are taking in giving effect to the workplace hazardous materials system, known as WHMIS, across the nation. Although the amendments to Part IV evolved through consultations with labour and employer groups, the WHMIS concept was successfully developed by representatives from labour, industry and the federal and provincial Governments. I believe that it is through the meaningful participation of labour, industry and Government and the acceptance of the responsibility for participation and the results of that participation that the burden of workplace accidents and illnesses will be broken.
I appreciate the opportunity of bringing this to the attention of Members of the House, Mr. Speaker.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the Minister in decrying the terrible and

April 28, 1986
Statements by Ministers
painful costs that death has, not only in relation to the issue of productivity, which the Minister raises in his statement, but to the issue of its human toll on families, particularly children and spouses.
There is, however, another question for which the Government has to answer. Given the statistics just cited by the Minister, and given the fact that the battle against death in the workplace has not yet been won-it is far from being won- why is it that the Government is reducing the Budget of the Canada centre for occupational health and safety? In the last Budget of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), we saw a 10 per cent reduction, and there is a further 10 per cent reduction projected. At the same time, as a result of these cutbacks, the Government has abolished the quality of working life program, and it has abolished the collection of data with respect to wages and working conditions in all businesses across the country which do not have the benefit of organized labour.
It is important to note that this measure today was not called by the Government but by the Canadian Labour Congress. I laud the Canadian Labour Congress for doing so.
The Government has a responsibility to the workers organized and unorganized. It is now abolishing the quality of working life centre, and the statistics which gave a chance to every Canadian to understand what was happening with salary and working conditions in every establishment in Canada, along with the cutbacks in the Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, reflect this Government's lack of commitment to the working people. Even the Neilsen Task Force points out that at present the centre has not been in a position to do research but only to provide information. Part of the reason is that of budgetary restraints, and the futher budgetary restraints being imposed by the Government to the tune of a potential 20 per cent cutback will mean further deaths and injury in the workplace.
[DOT] (mo)


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this matter. I would like to first congratulate the CLC for initiating this day of mourning. I think it is long past the time that Canadians recognize the contributions and sacrifices in life and limb made by workers in helping to develop our country. However, it is not enough to hear words on this matter spoken in the House of Commons. The plight of workers, whether they be in mines, forests, offices or banks, is something about which we should all be concerned. The Government should be concerned, not only through its words but through its actions.
The Hon. Member who just spoke indicated that at a time when we are concerned about chemicals in the workplace, and death and injury to workers, the Government is cutting back funding to the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. Last week, in front of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, officials from that agency indicated that they had more requests for information
this year than last year. They could not meet the requests that were made last year, yet their funding is being cut back.
The Minister, in his remarks, mentioned that we passed changes to Part IV of the Canada Labour Code. That was two years ago and the regulations are finally in place. However, the Government has not acted on all the changes we made. One of the very significant omissions was the failure to establish an advisory council on occupational health and safety as required by the legislation. At a time when Canadians are so concerned about health in the workplace, that is one step the Governn-ment could have taken. It is not a very expensive measure, but it is very important in making sure that management and labour have a chance to give the Government direction towards saving lives.



PETITIONS


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions, the first of which is from the great Province of Alberta. Whereas any amendment of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act to remove indexation of annuities will adversely affect former members of Canada's Armed Forces, widows and dependents. Whereas the Government has shown its intention to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act without first consulting with annuity recipients and those-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has several petitions. 1 think she knows our practice is to give a summary and just the prayer, not all the preamble. I am perfectly happy to have the Hon. Member present her petitions, of course.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, these former members of the Armed Forces from the Province of Alberta are angry with the Government because of its decision to move ahead with deindexation of their pensions. The petition of the undersigned residents who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners, ably states their complaints and grievances.
I have another petition from Victoria, British Columbia, signed by several dozen former servicemen who also call upon the Government to refrain from any action with respect to superannuation and unemployment insurance without consulting with those who have paid into the funds.
I have a further petition from Victoria, British Columbia, again from former servicemen and women who ask the Government not to implement changes to the unemployment insurance regulations which pertain to the inclusion of pension income as earnings. There are several hundred signatures on this petition.
April 28, 1986

I have another petition from Edmonton, Alberta. Again it includes several dozen signatures of former service people and their supporters who call upon the Government to revoke changes to the unemployment insurance regulations and Section 57 and Section 58, which pertain to the inclusion of pension income as earnings. There are several hundred signatores to that petition.
I have several more on that issue, but I will hold them for another day. I do, however, have a series of petitions on another issue which this Government has not dealt with.


REINSTATEMENT OF QUOTAS ON FOOTWEAR IMPORTS
Sheila Maureen Copps: These petitions, Mr. Speaker, deal with the Canadian footwear industry. Unfortunately not all the petitions have been accepted because the grandfathering clause has not yet been approved. If it has been, I hope I will hear about it because I have several thousand more signatures on petitions which have been ruled out of order. The petitioners humbly declare that the Canadian footwear industry is responsible for 20,000 jobs with an estimated production value of $830 million per year. The industry has made serious efforts to improve its efficiency and productivity. The petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) to reinstate quotas on all footwear imports for the next five years, thereby protecting existing jobs and allowing for the creation of new jobs in the industry. This particular petition is signed by several hundred employees and their supporters in the Canadian footwear industry.
I will refrain from presenting these other petitions until-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that she simply has to indicate that she has them, and then file them. It has exactly the same effect.


REINSTATEMENT OF KATIMAVIK PROGRAM
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions dealing with the lack of concern shown for youth across the country. These petitions are signed by high school students from the City of Prince Albert. They wish the Government to reinstate the Katimavik program as quickly as possible.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, in spite of the futility of it, young people all across the country continue to protest the cancellation of Katimavik, which is a symbol of the absence of a suitable policy towards young people. I table the petition with 150 signatures from Windsor and British Columbia.


Mr. Gauthier:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps some Members missed it, but I think on April 22 you ruled that certain petitions would be acceptable if the Hon. Member tabled it with the Clerk of the House. I understand that if they
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
refer back to Hansard of that day they can find out exactly what the conditions were.


Mr. Speaker:: There was a request that the Chair do it by unanimous consent. The Chair was in some difficulty and asked that there be a House Order, which I think we have dealt with. Hon. Members may want to refer to Hansard of-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: April 22.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the House Order was last week, though.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I should advise the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by six minutes beginning at one o'clock today.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 25, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson 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.
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, you began the day by correcting some errors. I have to correct a very serious error I made on Friday. It is on page 12669 of Hansard. I referred to a table and I was quoting the reductions in EPF funding from what the provinces had anticipated. I quoted from that table and I quoted my own province of Newfoundland when I said that in 1986-87 there would be a net reduction from what they had anticipated in Newfoundland of $7 million. Then I quoted over a five-year period an amount of $48 million. That was grossly underestimated because the total amount that Newfoundland will receive less than they had anticipated in EPF will, in fact, be $132 million. Over a five-year period Newfoundland will not get $132 million from the Government of Canada that it

April 28, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
had anticipated for health and post-secondary education. The mistake allows me to underline what is not only an inequity, but I think more likely a tragedy.
What we are talking about is, first, a primary resource, and that is young people. We are talking about that resource in a province which is struggling economically to find itself. The great hope that we had was Hibernia. With the plummeting price of oil that project is certainly in jeopardy at the moment, unless the Government of Canada is going to announce a regime which will see some sort of financial support, either through tax measures or otherwise, for that particular project.
If I may just stray a moment, two press conferences in Newfoundland last week highlighted that. The oil companies jointly said that they would lose 4,800 jobs in that province unless some action was taken to shore up the weakened state of the oil industry. Mr. Bill Hopper of Petro-Canada in St. John's on Friday said that the ball was now in the court of the Government of Canada. Petro-Canada would do no more drilling in Newfoundland, and unless some sort of regime was put in place the Hibernia project will not be able to go ahead. I make that point because I think it is relevant here.
There is another point. Even if the Government of Canada comes through with a policy now and Hibernia does go ahead, which I hope is the case, the real pay-off to Newfoundland is going to be in jobs for Newfoundlanders. There is no way that our people are going to get those jobs unless they have the training. I make the point because it is relevant here on this particular issue. The key thing that we need in Newfoundland is training for our young people, where there is a 50 per cent unemployment rate at the present time. The Senate committee talked about a national tragedy in this country for young people. In my province now we have a 50 per cent unemployment rate among eligible young people. What they need is some sort of training and education that will enable them to take the jobs we hope are going to be available. How is that going to happen when we see that over a five-year period there will be $132 million less in the field of post-secondary education in my province alone, not counting the other provinces across this country?
What does that mean? It means if we are going to take up the slack and forge ahead somebody has to step into the breach. Who is it going to be? Is it going to be the Province of Newfoundland? We know how financially strapped they are. We have been depending over the years since we joined Confederation on the Government of Canada making up the inequalities that we find. What we are finding here is that there is now a cut-back, an abrogation of that treaty we signed in 1949 when we became Canadians. We had expected that Confederation would bring this kind of benefit and, indeed, it did. What we are seeing now is a slip back into the past whereby we are going to have to depend more and more on our own meagre and inadequate resources. I think that is the real tragedy of the Bill we are discussing here today.
We are discussing a Bill which says to young people, "You are going to get less than you had expected. You have to wait". There is a 50 per cent unemployment rate. There are opportunities ahead, but education is the key issue if we are going to make progress in my province, and this Bill puts that in jeopardy. I think this is one of the most serious actions that has taken place in a long time. I do not know where the money went. I know we can find money to bail out banks in western Canada, so how is it that we cannot find money to help young people get an adequate education? How is it that we can agree to cut back from an 8 per cent increase to a 6 per cent increase in the funding of post-secondary education and health? How can you justify that as the Government? That is the real tragedy of what is going on here today.
What we should be doing, as I tried to point out on Friday, instead of making education second, third and fourth place we should be making it the number one priority. That is what other federal states are doing. We can talk about free trade, industrial strategy and new tax regimes, but unless we give some priority to education we are not going to be able to compete as a country in a smaller and far more integrated and interdependent world.
Every other country that I know of is giving the kind of prominence that we should be giving to education. In Germany and Switzerland, for example, which are both federal states, the federal Government and the provincial Governments work together. In Germany, for example, the two key planning and advisory bodies, the Bund Landers commission for education, planning and research promotion, and the science council both have equal voting representation from the Bund and from the Landers. We have to start doing that too.
There must be a greater co-ordination of education in this country. There must be a greater emphasis on it. We cannot simply say that education is a provincial responsibility and leave it at that. There must be a national will and determination to do something to improve the state of education in this country. There must be that national will, and behind that national will there must be the dollars. There is no point in talking about that if we are not prepared to put the necessary dollars into it. That is the main point that I want to make.
As a matter of fact, the Canadian Teachers' Federation has said the same sort of thing about a national strategy for education. The Canadian Teachers' Federation advocated in a submission to the Macdonald Royal Commission the following:
The establishment of a Canadian Office of education jointly supported by the Government of Canada and the Governments of the provinces and territories. It would disseminate information nation-wide as well as promote research in education. It would study fiscal problems and recommend how they can be solved. It would co-ordinate federal education activities and promote common policies on education across Canada. The above Office would be supported by a Canadian Council of Education which would draw upon the advisory resources of a broad range of interests in Canadian society.
In other words, they are saying not only must the Governments work together, but we should be drawing on expert people who can make a contribution in the field of education. We should be drawing on those people in devising a national
April 28, 1986

strategy. The Canadian Teachers' Federation, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, all of these organizations, and eminent academics across the country have been saying over the past year in specialized journals, and in the press as well, that this sort of thing must happen if we are going to compete as a country in the world community. That is the point we have to make today.
We are resource rich in Canada, but the greatest resource of all is our young people. Yet the Senate Report on Youth tells us that they are in danger of being a lost generation. Is the 20th century really going to belong to Canada as Sir Wilfrid Laurier said? Are we really one of the top five countries in the world? We are trying to break into that select circle. Can we really become one of the top five countries when we are not giving the same kind of prominence to education as those other countries? Are we coming of age internationally? Are we discovering who we are by throwing off our sense of the past and competing head to head with other countries?
[DOT] (U30)
When we compare our education system to that of West Germany, we see that there is a great difference. When we compare our economy to that of Japan and then ask how our education system compares to that of Japan, there is a great difference. Those are the kinds of questions we should be debating rather than talking about cut-backs in post-secondary education and health.
I wanted to use this opportunity to focus on what I think should be a number one priority in this country. We must have a national strategy for education that includes greater coordination. The co-ordination of that natiional strategy requires adequate funding. There is no more important area in this country that should receive adequate funding than the field of education. It is the greatest challenge facing us, and if we fail to deal with it we will put the nation at risk.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, as the spokesperson for the New Democratic Party, I wish to speak against this Bill. In doing so, I want to point out that this Bill is a repeat performance of what was introduced by the Liberals in the 1981-82 period. At that time, the former Government moved to reduce funding to the provinces for medicare and post-secondary education. That Liberal measure was opposed, not only by the New Democratic Party caucus but by the Conservatiave Opposition as well.
Among those Conservative Members who said this move was a betrayal of Confederation and proof that co-operative federalism was dying, and a unilateral action that should not have been taken, were the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), and the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald). Those Conservative Members, when in Opposition, attacked the Liberals for doing exactly what the Conservatives are doing today.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
I am sure all Members agree that there is nothing more important than ensuring equal access to medical and educational services right across the country. Not only is it a gift to our youth, it is fundamental to our future. We must provide, as much as possible, access to adequate post-secondary educational services so that a person growing up in Halifax or Corner Brook has the same opportunity for a decent education as someone who grows up in Toronto or other affluent parts of this nation. That will not happen with this legislation.
The level of funding for medicare services will be reduced, despite the fact that studies indicate that the cost of medical services will increase by a rate in excess of the growth in Gross National Product. The Government will only increase its contribution to the provinces for medicare and post-secondary education by a rate which is 2 per cent less than the growth of the Gross National Product. Such a built-in failure to our medicare system is a back-door approach to destroying universality in this country.
I have already stated that the actual cost of medicare is increasing at a greater rate than the growth in the Gross National Product. In addition, we know that the age of our population is increasing, which means that the cost of providing medical services in this country will increase. Furthermore, people are healthier and living longer as a result of the development of new technologies. Indeed, this is a further cost.
The Government, which opposed the Liberal move to cut or reduce funding for post-secondary education and medicare, is not only not matching but further reducing the funding from the amount to which it was reduced by the Liberals in 198182.
When the Conservatives introduced this legislation late Friday afternoon, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State of Canada (Mr. Scott), who introduced the legislation in the absence of the Minister, said, as reported at page 12666 of Hansard'.
It follows a long process of consultation with the provinces over the past year or more which has involved both the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney).
Let us consider what type of consultation really took place. In the May 23 Budget, without any forewarning to the provinces, the Minister of Finance rose in the House and indicated that he wanted to reduce the level of funding for post-secondary education and medicare in established programs financing by $2 billion per year by 1990-91. To be fair, the actual amount of money coming from the federal Government to the provinces will increase. According to the present legislation, the provinces would receive $2 billion more per year by 1990-91 for medicare and post-secondary education than they receive under this Bill. This measure was implemented without any consultation. However, four months later, at the end of a meeting with the provincial ministers of finance in Halifax, the Minister of Finance indicated that those cutbacks will not begin in 1987, when the present legislation expires, but on April 1, 1986. There was no consultation, just an announcement by the Minister of Finance at the end of a

April 28, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
meeting between himself and his provincial counterparts. What type of consultation is that? It is not consultation; it is unilateral action which shows that the Government is following in the footsteps of the old Liberal Government. It is not listening to the provinces or those who are concerned about funding for medicare services and post-secondary education in this country.
In addition to not announcing its agenda when it came to power, the Government did not even tell us in its May Budget that it intended to reduce the level of funding for postsecondary education and medicare on April 1, 1986. In the May 23 Budget and in the papers attached thereto it was indicated that there would be no reduced funding for fiscal year 1986-87. In effect, the Minister was telling us at that time through the papers he tabled that he had no intention of cutting the funding on April 1 of this year. Some four months after tabling his Budget he went to Halifax and said: "Oh, by the way, we are going to cut another $400 million which should have been coming to you in a few months' time for post-secondary education and medicare".
There are only two conclusions which can be drawn. The first is that in May of 1985 the Government did not know where it was going. It did not know what its plans were with regard to post-secondary education. The second is that the Government deliberately kept the House and the provincial Governments in ignorance of the plans which it was undertaking. Neither road is a very honourable one to travel.
The first one says that the Government did not know what was going on and all of a sudden in September it decided that it needed more money. Why did it need more money in September? Was it because it bailed out the banks? Was it because it found out that it was giving more money to the oil companies than it had thought it was going to give? Was it because it thought that the group of people who should suffer should be those who need our medical services and those who want to take advantage of our post-secondary education facilities? Is that what happened? If not, then the second alternative is there for us to see. The Government knew in May what it was doing, but it did not want the provinces or the groups concerned with medicare and post-secondary education to have an opportunity to oppose what it was doing.
Following in that vein one would assume that by saying it will be making cuts sometime in the distant future, sometime around 1990-91, people would not be concerned. However, that is not good enough., If the Government knew what it was doing it should have told the people of Canada. It should have consulted with the provinces to ensure that they knew what the Conservative agenda was.
As a result of either course of action the Government stands condemned. First, it stands condemned for not consulting or, alternatively, for not knowing what it was going to do. When it decided it had to save some more money to protect its image of deficit-fighting, it decided to pick on the people who are most
in need of our services. Again, it picks on those people who receive medical services and those who need to have a better education system in order to compete in our more complicated society.
In introducing the legislation the Parliamentary Secretary said, as reported at page 12,667 of Hansard:
Let us look at consultation with the provinces to assure the House that the maximum possible consultation has taken place with those who are most directly affected by EPF.
What consultation? Did the Government meet with the provinces? No. Did it listen to the provinces when they finally forced this issue on to the agenda at the First Ministers' Conference in Halifax at the end of November? No. Did the federal Government meet with university professors? Did it meet and discuss this matter with healthcare professionals? Does the Government have the support of any of these groups in our society? No.
What consultation? What is any different in the way the Conservative Government has approached cut-backs in regard to medicare and post-secondary education than the approach taken by the Liberals in 1981-82? The answer, of course, is that there is no difference.
Let us look at some of the words spoken by Conservatives in 1981-82 when they, as members of the Opposition, attacked the Liberals for reducing funding for medicare and postsecondary education. The present Minister of National Health and Welfare, who at that time was opposition health critic, said as reported at page 15,751 of Hansard: "Today we have unilateral action." The Hon. Member was condemning the fact that the federal Government was going ahead with these cuts. It was doing so despite the fact that the provinces opposed them and despite the fact that the majority of the provinces at that time, as is the case today, said that they needed more money for medicare and post-secondary education. The provinces were saying that what they should be doing was sitting down with the federal Government to negotiate levels of funding in terms of the types of programs which should be financed. In this way both the provinces and the federal Government would know what would happen over the next five years. They could agree as to what programs should be continued and from where the money would come. So the present Minister of National Health and Welfare condemned the federal Liberal Government for taking unilateral action. As reported at the same page of Hansard he went on to say:
I suggest that equalization, post-secondary funding, medicare and hospitalization are too important to be brought into the arena of confrontation-
In other words, the Hon. Member was saying that these matters should be negotiated. Further on in his speech he went on to talk about the lack of adequate notice which the Liberal Government had given to the provinces at that time. Exactly what did the Hon. Member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) say? He said this:
People have plans and programs regarding past commitments and they believe there must be some continuity in the programs.
April 28, 1986

Again, that is exactly the situation we face today. The provinces have made commitments. Not knowing that the federal Government intended to introduce this legislation, the provinces made commitments to their universities, hospitals, doctors, nurses and others involved in the healthcare system. They negotiated contracts and passed their own budgets without knowing what the federal Government was contemplating. This is so because, as I said earlier, this cut-back was not announced in the May 23, 1985 Budget. As I also said earlier the documents the Minister of Finance tabled in the House which, of course, were immediately circulated to the Premiers and the provincial Ministers concenred with these matters, indicated there would not be a cut-back. Since there was no indication that there would be a cut-back, the provincial Governments had every reason to believe that the legislation passed by the House in the spring of 1982 would be honoured. It was thought that it would be honoured because the Conservative Party, while in opposition, had said that the cuts were drastic and should not have taken place. Having said that in opposition how can they now say that the cuts are justified, and make even further cuts now that they are in Government? It is against all reason. Based on the word of Conservatives and on the documents it tabled, the provincial Governments made their promises, plans and commitments because they assumed, with all the justification in the world, that there would be no change until at least April 1, 1987.
In the very words of the present Minister of Health, he is condemned for reliving what the Liberals did in 1981-82. However, he is not alone. There were others on the Conservative benches, some who are now cabinet Ministers, who spoke out against the Liberal cut-backs. The present Minister of Finance, the Hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre, said on March 24, 1982, that this was no time for unilateral action. He supported the suggestion made by the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, the present Minister of Employment and Immigration, who suggested deferring a decision on the established program funding cuts for two years.
Why did the Minister who was then in Opposition say that we should defer a decision for two years? She said it because she felt it was important that the federal Government sit down with the provinces to work out an agreement. After all, as the Minister of Finance has said, that was not a matter for unilateral action but was something important.
The provinces have to pay for post-secondary education. The federal Government has to pay for post-secondary education. Others in society as well have to pay for post-secondary education. We all know it is important for our future to make sure that we have adequate funding for post-secondary education. We want the youth of Canada to have a chance to learn about computers and about humanity and to be able to deal with our ever-changing world.
The same thing can be said about medicare and hospitalization and the different programs we should be developing in this
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
area. Again, it is the federal Government, the provinces and others in society that pay for these services. Yet for some reason the former Liberal Government and now the Conservative Government believe that the federal Government can make a unilateral statement by saying: "We are going to cut back our funding, boys and girls, and we are not going to consult with you. We are going to do it and it is up to you to pick up the pieces". That is so insane. It is politically insensitive. It is reminiscent of an arrogance which many Canadians thought they had gotten rid of on September 4, 1984.
The new Conservative Government is acting arrogantly. It lacks in any concern for the provinces and for adequate funding for medicare and post-secondary education. It is so arrogant that it can turn its back, not only on what Conservative Members said in 1981 and 1982 but on the very election promises they made in the summer of 1984. What is the use of going through the electoral process? What is the use of making promises to certain groups?
Conservative Members made promises to university students and professors indicating that, not only would they not cut back funding to post-secondary education but they would reestablish funding that had been taken away from it by the Liberals. Yet here we are in the House of Commons right now debating a Bill which will take even more funding from postsecondary education and medical services. How can Conservative Members justify that?
Let us see what else the Minister of Finance said when he attacked the Liberals for their unilateral action. Referring to the Liberal Government, he said:
It now wants to shift the problem over to the provinces, it wants to shift the deficit problem ... at the federal level down to the provincial level.
He condemned the Liberals then for doing exactly what he is doing today. When he finally told the House of Commons what he was up to, the Minister of Finance said that he was doing this to reduce the deficit. That is the same thing Allan MacEachen said in 1981 and 1982. At that time, the now Minister of Finance denounced that and said that there is absolutely no use in shifting the deficit from the federal Government to the provincial Government; yet he is doing the very thing today through Bill C-96.
Again, as reported in Hansard of March 23, 1982, the Minister of Finance, when he was an Hon. Member of the Opposition, said the following:
The provinces are now moving into a deficit position, a position which will make it more difficult for them to finance this shift in spending.
At that time, the Minister of Finance was accurate. A number of the provinces did not have deficits, including the previous NDP government of Saskatchewan; a number of the provinces had very low deficits. At that time, the Minister of Finance, when he was in Opposition, said that the provinces were starting to build up deficits and if the Liberal federal Government would cut back on funding it would increase the deficits of the provinces. Indeed, that is what happened. He also said that it would be more difficult for the provinces to

April 28, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
provide hospitalization, medicare, and post-secondary education services. Yet here we are, five years later, and provincial deficits have climbed enormously right across the country, regardless of political stripe. Because of the years of recession and high unemployment, because of the fact that money was not coming in from traditional sources and because of the cuts the Liberal Government made in the past, the provinces are now facing very high deficits. What the Minister of Finance said in 1982 while he was a member of the Opposition was true then, but it is even more true now.
Now that the provinces are in a much worse financial situation, with their credit ratings decreasing and interest rates increasing, the federal Government wants to take more money from their pockets. It wants to put a further strain on already strained provincial economies and it wants to make the provinces find the money that is being taken away from postsecondary education and medicare.
I do not want to spend all of my time repeating the words spoken by the Minister of Finance when he was in Opposition. They were fine words and fine sentiments. If he believed them then, he should believe them now. However, there is one other statement that I would like to put before the new Conservative Members who were elected in the 1984 election and do not know what Conservative Members used to say when they were in Opposition. Again, as reported in Hansard of March 23, 1982, the now Minister of Finance said:
This is no time for confrontation and it is no time for unilateral action. This is a time when we need co-operation to nurse the tender relationship which exists between the two levels of Government.
Those were fine sentiments. It is necessary that the Conservative Government believe in those words now.
Some Government Members would say that it is only the New Democrats and Liberals, now in Opposition, who are opposed to this legislation. Some editorial writers are indicating that the federal Government is only doing what is necessary, and that because it is going to increase the number of dollars that go to the provinces each year it is looking after the needs of those who are involved in post-secondary education and those who are in need of medical services.
I have already dealt with the fact that we know that costs are increasing by more than the amount of money the federal Government will be providing. However, it is not only New Democrats and Liberals who at this particular time have decided that they do not want to see any further cutting of funding to medical services. Provincial Governments right across this country have decided that as have university professors, nurses, and doctors who recognize that Bill C-96 is wrong-headed legislation.
I should like to refer to a Green Paper on health care system expenditures and funding which was released by the Government of Newfoundland in January, 1986. It indicates the problems which that province, as a "have-not" province, will be facing as a result of federal cut-backs. It was made very
clear in that Green Paper that the Province of Newfoundland faces difficult decisions as a result of the actions of the federal Conservative Government. As a matter of fact, they were the same actions as those of the previous Liberal Government; they are just further down the road decreasing support for medicare and post-secondary education. As a result, Newfoundland has some very horrific issues, some very unfortunate questions, and some difficult problems with which to deal.
I should like to refer to the choices as the Government of Newfoundland sees them. On page 13 of the Green Paper the following is asked:
Is Newfoundland and Labrador the only area of the country grappling with health care financial issues?
As one would expect, the Government of Newfoundland answered that question in its own way. It indicated:
Definitely not. All provinces in the country are experiencing significant difficulties with the financing of their health care programs, especially as they face the reduction in the rate of growth in EPF transfers by the federal Government.
EPF is another way of saying money for medical services and money for post-secondary education. As I said earlier, the blame is laid on the previous Liberal Government and, even more so, on the present Conservative Government.
What choices does that Government have in terms of dealing with the problems? According to the Green Paper, its first option would be:
Privatization, in whole or in part, of the health care system through either private ownership, management or funding.
In other words, one way out would be to privatize medicine. Over 20 years ago the country decided that it did not want to lose that battle, that it wanted a publicly administered and publicly financed medical health system. It was decided back in the sixties, and there has been no indication that the people of Canada feel any differently now.
The second option it considered would be:
Changes in health care expenditures beyond those recommended in the Royal Commission on Hospital and Nursing Home Costs.
In other words, another reduction in services. Its third and fourth options were deficit financing and the tax system.
When one delves into the paper, one clearly understands that the people of the Province of Newfoundland are already the highest taxed of any people in the country. Therefore, changes to the tax system to bring in more money to make up for federal cut-backs was not really an option. As far as the deficit financing option was concerned, it was not really an option because the province was already severely in debt and its debt was growing without it making up for the federal shortfall. Newfoundland saw, as its way out of a dilemma, privatization or a reduction in the level of services, the very things against which the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and the Minister of Employment and Immigration fought five years ago.
Earlier this month in a rally in Winnipeg Justice Emmett Hall indicated that if we passed Bill C-96 we would ensure
April 28, 1986

that the "have-not" provinces or the less developed provinces of Canada could not provide the services their people need, and that we would have a two-tier educational system and two-tier medical services across the land. That is what has been said by Justice Emmett Hall, the Conservative Government of Newfoundland, and others across the country.
Moving to another province, the Minister of Human Resources for Nova Scotia said that it would simply emasculate the post-secondary educational system, that it would be chaotic, and that regardless of whose numbers were used, the system would simply fall apart. He went on to say that they should keep their "dang hands" off the post-secondary system over which they have no jurisdiction whatsoever. Those were the comments of another Conservative provincial cabinet Minister. He added his support to the Green Paper from his neighbouring province and to the comments we have heard from the Province of Manitoba.
It is not only politicians of one political stripe, or politicians from one province, but politicians at the provincial level who recognize that we face a very serious threat or back-door challenge to universality in our medical system and a challenge to our ability to face the future with regard to the postsecondary educational system.
I see Mr. Speaker signalling that I have only a few minutes remaining. Others have spoken out against this piece of legislation. The Canadian Hospital Association indicated that the cut-backs, compounded over five years, would result in 10.4 per cent less than is expected for hospitalization services.
The Western Regional Conference Faculties Association also urged the federal Government to honour its commitment to full funding of the Established Programs Financing Act, including its annual accelerator, and requested that it propose to the provinces alterations in the structure of the transfers so that the provinces were encouraged to increase their funding as well. This is something the federal Government is unwilling to do.
Also The Canadian Medical Association fought against this piece of legislation. It urged the Government of Canada to reconsider its proposed policy and to consider a federal-provincial cost sharing policy for health care, providing reasonable and comparative services in all parts of Canada based upon the fiscal capacity of the provinces to finance those services. In a letter dated December 10, 1985, the association also warned, as has Justice Emmett Hall, that this would create a two-tier health care system, one for those living in rich provinces and another for those living in provinces with lower Fiscal capacity.
If I had the time, I would refer to quotes from the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Nurses' Association, and other groups. However, in the time remaining, I should like to give the Conservatives a chance to do what they said the Liberals should have done in 1981-82. I will give them a chance to actually negotiate the matter with the provinces. In that vein, I move:
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
That Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, be not now read a second time but be read a second time this day six months hence.
In conclusion, when the Conservatives were in Opposition, they condemned the fact that it was unilateral action and that there had not been discussions with the provinces. Now that they are in Government, it is their chance to live up to the words which they spoke so eloquently in 1981-82.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I find the amendment of the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) to be in order. Resuming debate on the amendment.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be useful to give a short overview of Bill C-96 that differs from what we heard Friday and this morning. Bill C-96, which amends Part VI of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, 1977, is actually a vital part of the economic strategy set forth by the Government in November 1984, and explained by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in his economic message in 1984, as well as in the May Budget in 1985 and in the Budget brought down in February 1986.
Mr. Speaker, we have heard Members of the Liberal Opposition and Members of the New Democratic Party who of course criticized the Bill, as they criticize everything that is tabled in the House. I think it is wrong to look at Bill C-96 from that particular point of view alone and state that these are cutbacks. In this Bill we are not making cutbacks in transfers to the provinces. We are only slowing the growth of transfers made by the federal Government to the provinces. And we are doing so for a very good reason. When the previous Government was still in power, all it did was spend, spend and spend again. Now we have a national debt of over $200 billion. Quite frankly, if the Opposition were the least bit realistic, I think it would agree we cannot go on living on credit and borrowing to pay the interest. I am not talking about transfers to the provinces but strictly about paying the interest on what was spent, and let's not say how it was spent, by the previous Government.
Mr. Speaker, our strategy for economic renewal is working very well, at all levels, and Bill C-96 is part of this strategy. We said: All Canadians will have to shoulder their share of cutbacks and reductions. We have no choice. And as far as transfers to the provinces are concerned, we have planned for an increase of $1 billion per year over the next five years. At the end of those five years, we will have provided $90 billion, compared with $65 billion for transfers to the provinces during the five previous years. I think this shows there is a sensible and reasonable increase. It will be about 5 per cent per year. This increase is meant to cover inflation and also considers two vital aspects: the priority we have set on economic renewal and our formal commitment to post-secondary education and health services. I don't think anyone can deny that. What we

April 28, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
are doing is moderating the growth of transfers to the provinces in a normal way, as good administrators. We are not just saying: We are cutting this and that, we are stopping everything. There has been a lot of careful planning.
Earlier, I heard the Opposition Member say there had been no consultation. There has been more consultation between the Prime Minister of Canada and the provincial Premiers, and between the Minister of Finance and the provincial Ministers of Finance on this subject, and on matters generally, in the last eighteen months than there was during the last five years.
Mr. Speaker, how can anyone say there was no consultation and there has been only confrontation during the last eighteen months? That is just not true!
My New Democratic Party colleague who spoke earlier quoted what was said by the Liberals and the Conservatives, and so forth. In 1980, if the NDP had supported the Conservative Party's policy instead of supporting the Liberals, maybe we would not be in the fix we are now. We would have had at least four years with less spending and the sound administration which was lacking. Mr. Speaker, I think we should refresh their memory a bit.
Now when we look at all this, and people start accusing us of cutting ... Mr. Speaker, a cut-back means that of the so many billions of dollars which are given each year, there will be less money to go around next year. In the case under consideration there is no transfer payment cut-back in health and post-secondary education, but the rate of increase will decline.
So what did the provinces tell us? This was announced in November 1984. Since the provinces had planned ahead for 1985, they asked that it be deferred until 1986. Can you work it out so that we will not be affected by the November 1984 economic statement during our fiscal year 1984-85 and early 1986? We said yes, so this measure can be applied as of April 1, 1986.
Mr. Speaker, one has to know how the system works. The federal Government's projected expenditure increase was set at about 3 or 4 per cent. We do not intend to exceed 4 per cent. With respect to transfers payments to the provinces, our ceiling is 5 per cent, and that I would suggest attests to the effort we are making in that field to ensure a brighter future.
[DOT] am
Post-secondary education is the current topic, Mr. Speaker, and that spells future. The Conservative Government, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) have all agreed that it is an important and necessary requirement, and that is what we are working on. But we must also administer the country in a businesslike manner because it was on the verge of bankruptcy when we took office.
We have now reached the point where 25 per cent of public revenues are earmaked for interest payments alone. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, ours is a serious problem. We did not
have anything at all to do with it, it was created by Members opposite who are now urging us to spend, and spend yet more!
The minute we talk about amendments to slow the rate of increase, we are told: Don't do that. When we table a Budget, we are told: You are not cutting enough. I wish the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party would tell us, for once in two years, and perhaps this morning: You should reduce such or such expenditures. We are waiting for constructive suggestions. All we got from them in two years was criticism, we never heard one single positive proposition.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, the role of the Opposition does not end with filibusters on any and all Government measures designed to improve the future, the kind of long-term Government policy for all Canadians in the health and educational fields. We know the health sector is experiencing hard times. Referring only to Quebec and my own riding of Trois-Rivieres, problems we do have. True enough, the Government of Quebec may not be able to cope with the strong demand, but the funds are available, there has been no cut-back, and it will continue to receive ever higher payments over the coming years. Mr. speaker, here are some figures which will give you a better picture. Quebec got $3.5 billion in 1983-84, $3.8 billion in 1984-85, and $4 billion in 1985-86. This is certainly not a decrease, Mr. Speaker, and if someone claims that it is, we certainly did not go to the same accounting school.
As for our national expenditures, Mr. Speaker, we have said that they must be reduced. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has done a great job. We have had many Ministers of Finance in the last twenty years. Almost as many as twenty. In twenty years, not a single Liberal Minister of Finance said in a given year: We are going to spend so much and have a deficit of so much. This did not happen once. However, this year, the Minister of Finance has said: We are going to spend $105 billion for the year 1985-86. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, he was wrong and we spent only $104 billion. Mr. Speaker, I think that this shows that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Finance know what is going on, where they are going and how to govern the country effectively and profitably in the interests of all Canadians.
This might not please the Opposition, but in addition to knowing how to govern, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance are keeping their election promises as regards job creation and agreements with the provinces. Mr. Speaker, I have made a small list of the consultations between the Minister of Finance and his provincial counterparts. There was one in May 1985, another in late September 1985, one in November 1985, and another in December 1985. Let no one say that there were no consultations. Let no one say that we have resumed a confrontation policy. Mr. Speaker, within about eight months, the Minister of Finance of Canada sat down four times to discuss the problems of Canada with his provincial counterparts. The former federal Ministers of Finance would find it difficult to match this record.
Generally speaking, Mr. Speaker, the Federal Government is allocating more money to provincial health care and post-
April 28, 1986

secondary education programs than to nearly all its other budgetary items. This clearly shows the involvement and understanding of the Federal Government and the priority it gives to health care and post-secondary education programs.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, in addition to the amounts being discussed this morning, the Federal Government contributes $1.5 billion for health services administered by the Department of National Health and Welfare. There was no mention of this fact this morning. There are also expenditures made by other departments, such as the Department of Labour, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and I am convinced that this has the support of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Abitibi (Mr. St-Julien), the Department of National Defence, and the Department of Veterans' Affairs.
In relation with post-secondary education, the Federal Government allocates $1.1 billion to provincial bilingualism programs. This was not mentioned either, Mr. Speaker. This is for bilingualism in education, university research support, counselling and granting of subsidies under the Canadian student loans program and various other programs. Mr. Speaker, this represents another $2.6 billion allocated to health care of post-secondary education. This is certainly good news, however it must not be mentioned.
I do not want to get into the complexities of the tax system, but as you know, Mr. Speaker, our taxation system also provides assistance in various forms, such as deductions, tax exemptions for medical and educational costs and exemptions for various products used in medecine.
In addition to all this, I have not yet spoken about the equalization system under which six provinces receive $5 billion more a year.
If you look at this from an economic viewpoint or in the context of the direction taken by the Conservative Government since September 4, 1984 and the economic statement of November 1984, which indicated what the Government wanted to achieve and how it would have to work to do so, it becomes obvious that we have a monstrous problem in our annual deficit and national debt.
When I look at the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) I can see that he is not happy to hear me talk about this problem, but it was caused by his Government.


An Hon. Member:: His friends!


Pierre H. Vincent: We now have to live with it and solve this problem, Mr. Speaker. And to solve it, we must see to it that the programs we have, the monies we spend as the national Government are spent as economically and as profitably as they can. What we have done so far was to spend less money on better programs, and that will remain our course of action. And certainly the Provinces, as all other Canadian men and women, as all programs, are experiencing not cuts but a reduction in the expected increase. And again the reduction is not a huge one. The increase which the Provinces will get over the years will be
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
greater than the one we will have as a Federal Government for our various programs.
So the Federal Government has taken into account the priorities of the Provinces. As I said, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance met earlier with provincial representatives. He identified and backed up their priorities. Of course, Mr. Speaker, when you are in Opposition your strategy is to look at the bad side of the coin rather than at the good one. But the good side of the coin is that, so far, things are going well. And so far we have struck a balance in our budget forecast and that is something new. That is the good side of the coin. Everybody- and I think Canadians are willing to accept that, including people in the constituency of Trois-Rivieres-is aware that cuts are being made everywhere. They agree because they gave us a clear mandate for sound management of public monies and for reducing our national debt to a decent size, a size we can live with and which we will solve one day, rather than spending left and right as it used to be the rule.
Mr. Speaker, the contributions to be made under Bill C-96 are just and fair. The federal contribution is in line with economic and population growth. In other words, the contribution is based on the population in each Province and our economic growth-in each Province as well.
This is fair, and the Provinces are in agreement with that. The Provinces are conscious of that fact, and as far as Quebec is concerned, I think the budget that will be tabled very shortly in that Province will not be without cuts. In all the Province cuts also have to be made. It is my view that we all must live in step with the conditions that are prevailing in 1986.
This is the great change with Bill C-96, Mr. Speaker. The great change is that starting in 1986-87, growth will be reduced by 2 percentage points to make sure that things go better, that economic conditions improve across Canada. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that it is asking too much. I feel this must definitely be looked at within the context of the economic renewal that was launched in November 1984 by the minister of Finance and which has been working so well ever since, that Opposition Members flare up whenever we mention it to them.
I see your signal that my time is almost up. I would like perhaps to point out, in respect of federal-provincial relations, that there have been more agreements signed, whether it be on regional development, tourism, transportation, or communications, than there have ever been in any 18-month period before. And they say things are turning sour between the Federal Government and the Provinces. No, everything is going well. The Provinces are getting more money than they used to, and, in a sensible, profitable way.
Mr. Speaker, we are conscious of the situation. We are not reducing. We are making sure that all Canadians get a fair share of what they are entitled to under transfer payments to

April 28, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
the Provinces, and it is my view that it is essential that the Bill should go through within the best possible time frame.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions, comments. The Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith).


Mr. Frith:: I have a question, Mr. Speaker. At a meeting of the Quebec Conservative caucus held in Sherbrooke on June 26, 1984, the Progressive Conservative Party promised to assume the federal obligation to finance provincial health care under the established program financing scheme and to provide additional funds to the provinces on a cost sharing basis.
Why did the Conservatives break that election promise made in summer of 1984?


Pierre H. Vincent: First of all, Mr. Speaker, the Government has not broken that promise. I am entitled to 20 minutes, Mr. Speaker. For the past 20 minutes, I have been trying to tell them that the Government has increased ... There will be an increase of one billion dollar per year over the next five years. This is certainly not a reduction. It's one billion dollar more per year.
Over the past five years, Mr. Speaker, $65 billion have been paid to the provinces. Over the next five years, $90 billion will be paid to them; 90 minus 65 is 25. Therefore, there will be an increase of $25 billion. We have not broken any promise there. In addition to keeping and fulfilling our promises, we have done more over the past 18 months regarding our election promises than the former Government did in four years with the promises it made in 1980. In 1980, they had promised not to increase the price of oil, hardly two months elapsed when the price of oil skyrocketted. When we make promises, Mr. Speaker, we keep them. We could not keep all our promises the very same day for a very valid reason. When we took over power on September 4, we found a mess. It was-I will not say the word because it may not be considered parliamentary- nevertheless, I will say that we had a big clean up to do, even bigger than we had expected. And that, Mr. Speaker, is something even the Liberal Premier of Ontario had to acknowledge.
So, Mr. Speaker, we are going to keep our other promises as well, but we had to do a lot of cleaning and there is more to be done.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member who just spoke indicated he found that Members of the Opposition always look on the black side of things and their comments are either negative or not quite correct. I found that quite interesting. In my own speech, which preceded the Hon. Member's remarks, I quoted from three Members of the Conservative Party when in opposition, the Minister of Finance, the
Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I hope the Hon. Member will apologize to his Cabinet colleagues for the insult he has reflected upon them.
I am certainly willing to defend the words of the Minister of Finance when he was being honest with the people of Canada in 1981-82. He said there should not be unilateral action or cut-backs at that time. I wonder if the Hon. Member would explain how the Conservatives in 1981-82 could speak against unilateral action, could say that the cut-backs would be hard on the provinces and that it would transfer the deficit from the federal Government to the provinces-the Hon. Member is being informed of what the answer should be-and then the Hon. Member say what he did?


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Because they are hypocrites.


Rodney Edward Murphy: I will continue to speak for a few moments, Mr. Speaker, to give the Hon. Member a chance to be briefed on his answer.
I wonder why the present Minister of Finance said in 1982 that there should not be unilateral action and that the deficit would be transferred from the federal Government to the provinces? Further to that, does the Hon. Member believe the Conservative campaign promise on page 98 of the PC campaign handbook which states with regard to established program financing for post-secondary education: "We would return to the 1977 funding formula"? That is from the Conservative handbook.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: The handbook is now in the
Smithsonian Institute.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Why did Conservative Members of the Opposition make that promise when this legislation is going in exactly the opposite direction? Why did the Minister of Finance in 1982 say that we should not transfer the deficit to the provinces when now, even worse than the Liberals, he is transferring more of the deficit to the provinces?


Pierre H. Vincent: I thank the Hon. Member for his question, Mr. Speaker, for it will give me the opportunity to repeat for the fourth time what I said this morning.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, to those who have said that there were no consultations and that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) has acted unilaterally, let me say that I indicated a while ago the dates on which the federal Minister of Finance and his provincial counterparts met and came to an understanding.
It is a fact that provincial Ministers of Finance want as much as they can get. That is quite normal. However, the provinces are aware of the mess we have inherited from the former Government and they realize that they must work together with us to build a better country, a better Canada.

April 28, 1986

A province or the federal Government alone cannot by itself improve the situation in our country. Everybody must work together. That is exactly what we have been trying to do since September 4 with a good measure of success. Unfortunately for the Opposition, it is working.
Mr. Speaker, the other question of my hon. colleague concerned a reduction in transfer payments. Again, Mr. Speaker, the transfer payments to the provinces are not decreasing but increasing by as much as 5 per cent, while our own expenses are increasing by as much as 3.5 or 4 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that we are proving once again that harmony works and that the economy is working.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have two questions. The Minister is prepared to cut spending in two very important areas. He is prepared to risk major cut-backs in medicare and post-secondary education. Rather than rush into this on a unilateral basis and force spending cuts and service cuts on the province, would the Minister or the Government consider entering into two or three national conferences on health and post-secondary education so they can set out the objectives at the various levels of government in these two important areas before he cuts spending, and before he causes closures of hospitals and post-secondary education? That is the first question. As my second, to see if we cannot put into perspective what the Hon. Member has said, I would simply ask him this. Supposing he had a contract for a 10 per cent salary increase for the next five years each year and the boss turned around and said you are only going to get 5 per cent, would you not regard that as a cut?


Pierre H. Vincent: First of all, Mr. Speaker, as far as a national conference is concerned, I suggest that would be the responsa-bility of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) and the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard). One only has to watch them operate to realize that these two Ministers are doing a great job.
I will convey to them this suggestion and they will do what they have to do at that level.
Mr. Speaker-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Actually it was the Minister of Finance's (Mr. Wilson) suggestion.


Pierre H. Vincent: It was not the Finance Minister, it was those two Ministers.

Mr. Speaker, if I get a salary with an expected increase of 10 per cent per year over the next five years and if I am advised two years before the end of the five-year period that
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
the increase will be 5 per cent, that's not a cut, that's a reduction in my rate of increase. That's quite different.
Mr. Speaker, we may have a little difficulty understanding ...


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It is not a cut; it is a decrease?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order! Order, please. I must regretfully advise the House that the time allocated for questions and comments is over. Debate. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) has the floor.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to say that I intend to support my hon. colleague's motion to postpone consideration of the Bill for six months, because I agree this legislation requires further analysis before letting it come to a vote in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, the main reason is, unlike what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Vincent) in his speech and what was said by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State of Canada (Mr. Scott) in his speech on April 25, the main reason is that there has not been what I would call consultation. And I would refer Hon. Members to what was said by most participants at recent federal-provincial conferences. If having consultations means being informed and being told: take it or leave it, Mr. Speaker, I don't think I would call that consultation. However, if I may refer to what was said by most provincial representatives from provinces of every political stripe, whether they were Liberal, Conservative or New Democrats, it is easy to conclude that the statements made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance and by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State do not stand up.

The Premier of Ontario, after Bill C-96 had been tabled, and also in the context of the federal and provincial conference, David Peterson, said the following:
This reduction in the funds provided the province will translate into a reduction in services. "There will be fewer hospital beds", warned the Ontario Premier, David Peterson-
Mr. Robert Nixon, the Ontario Treasurer said the following:
There was uniform opposition to Ottawa's plan.
Mr. Gerard D Levesque, the Minister of Finance in Quebec said the following:
It is unfair to the provinces, because they have been counting on the amounts agreed to in the accords.
Mr. Richard Hatfield, Premier of New Brunswick said the following:
I will have no choice but to increase user fees for health services.
The Minister of Finance for New Brunswick said the following:

April 28, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
It Is unreasonable for the federal Government to think that provinces which have taken difficult measures to deal with their own financial situation can also be expected to absorb part of the problem at the federal level.
This was a Conservative Member in the Legislative Assembly in New Brunswick. The Minister of Finance of Nova Scotia said the same thing:
Every province in there made it clear that there's probably nothing more important to deliver to Canadians than health and education.
[ Translation]
And 1 could quote some people from Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, all this is a clear indication that the problem today is not just the deficit, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) would have us believe and as the Hon. Member for Trois-Rivieres (Mr. Vincent) tried to explain. The crux of the probem is the financing of these services. And that is why the motion presented by the Member for the New Democratic Party, a motion I would have presented myself if he had not already done so, this motion would give the federal Government a chance to conduct genuine discussions. These discussions must not be uniltateral and must deal with the issues.
The question we must ask ourselves is: Are Canada's postsecondary education services too big? Are we offering Canadian youth too many opportunities for getting a higher education?
Another question we should ask is: Are our hospitals and health services too big for this country? Do we have too many hospital beds? Do we have too many medical services? Are we, in point of fact, offering Canadians too many services? Should we cut back? That is what we should be talking about. And if the answer to these questions is no, as I believe it is, if we listen to the First Ministers, the Ministers of Finance and the Health Ministers of the various provinces, and even the Minister of National Health and Welfare of Canada (Mr. Epp), we realize that these services are not exaggerated and that on the contrary, most of the provinces, in the difficult economic situation this country has known since 1982 and 1983, and especially in those years, made substantial efforts to try and cut costs.
Even the Quebec Government had special legislation passed to lower salaries paid to hospital and education personnel. Is that not a tremendous effort that is done to cope with certain financial difficulties? And on top of all that, the Federal Government is having part of the deficit transferred to the Provinces. But this is not the angle from which this should be considered in my view. Rather, we must ask whether or not our post-secondary services, university research, hospital care, medical care have grown beyond reason. And if the answer is no in those areas, the problem at hand is how to finance such services. It is not to be done as the Minister of Finance is proposing, by cutting off at his own discretion and without consultation, $2 billion in 1990-91. Much more than that is involved.
If we add up what Bill C-96 will represent at the end of year 1992, that is from the day it applies until the end, an $8 billion cut will be made from provincial budgets for post-secondary education and health care. Yes, $8 billion. What does that
mean? For Ontario, $3 billion. For Quebec, $2 billion. For British Columbia, $930 million. For a Province like Newfoundland, $187 million.
Mr. Speaker, is it possible to think that those Provinces will be in a position to provide those services with that kind of cuts? 1 suggest to the Minister of Finance he should use . . . The Hon. Member says we never make suggestions. I think the Minister of Finance should use the 6-month period that is proposed in the motion to resume those discussions. All the more so since he himself promised in his economic statement of November 1984 not to tamper with the transfer payments to Provinces in the 1986-87 budget. One more broken promise by this Tory Government. That was a commitment. And when we look at his own published figures for transfer payment cuts in 1986-87, the figure reads zero. And now, instead of that zero, the figure that would be shown for cuts would be above $300 million. 1 suggest to the Minister of Finance that he try during that period to come to an agreement with the Provinces on financing established programs. However, the Minister of Finance will tell the Provinces whether the post-secondary educational services are too extensive. He will explain it to the Provinces and to Canadians. He will explain to the people in the waiting rooms of our emergency wards that our hospital services are extravagant. He will explain to the citizens of Ontario that extra-billing for health care should be avoided because that Government has already made that commitment. He will explain that and state at the same time that he is cutting off $2 billion a year when in fact, for the arrangements under consideration, it is $8 billion.
Mr. Speaker, I think that there lies the fundamental problem.
I will say to the Minister of Finance that in the education and health areas, there are some basic requirements. And when one compares health costs on the basis of our Gross National Product with those in the United States where health services are not nationalized, our percentage of costs on the basis of the Gross National Product is lower than theirs. This would mean that our system is comparatively efficient. Hospitalization as well as health care and post-secondary education are available to the rich and to the poor. If it is true, as evidenced by figures, that our health costs on the basis of our Gross National Product are lower in Canada than in the United States, our problem now is to know how those essential services are to be financed.
If the Minister of Finance has something to suggest, if he now agrees with user fees, even though he and his Party objected to them previously, if he is now against the act of Parliament which prevents the provinces from imposing user fees to their residents on penalty of having their transfer payments reduced, if he is against this law, let him rise and say so and explain his position at a federal-provincial conference. Let him say to the provincial Ministers: You want too much, and, from now on, you will have to ask university students to pay at least one-third or two-thirds of their tuition fees. Let him explain that to the Canadian people. Let him say exactly what he wants, but for the moment, all he is doing is taking away $8 billion and letting the provinces make up the difference.
April 28, 1986

When he sat in Opposition, what did the Minister have to say about the fiscal arrangements, and especially about the aboliton of the complex fiscal guarantee formula developed at the time of the tax reform by a Goverment which he was criticizing? This is what he said, and I am quoting from page 15758 of Hansard for March 23, 1982.1 shall read the English version.
The only sign it shows of cutting spending is by shifting the burden of the established programs funding on to the provincial governments. The provinces are now moving into a deficit position, a position which will make it more difficult for them to finance this shift in spending. This is true particularly in Ontario and the eastern provinces which do not have the substantial energy revenues of most of the western provinces. That is not co-operative federalism. That is predatory federalism, and it will not and cannot work in this country.
I agree with that completely. However, one cannot build a country or build a dream for this country with a pair of scissors in one's hand. Is that the type of country the Minister wants to build? Is that the type of services he wants to give to the country?


Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: You will never understand, Raymond.


Raymond Garneau: I will never understand. I understand what they are getting at very well. You want to shift the burden of your deficit on to the provincial government.


Some Hon. Members:: Your deficit.


Raymond Garneau: I fought against that when I was Minister of Finance in the Province of Quebec and I will continue to fight against that.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Why not speak to the people in your Party?


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the Minister of Finance will take the opportunity to speak later on. The programs being discussed now were established in the late sixties and, especially as concerns post-secondary education, they were brought in gradually. Since these programs come under provincial jurisdiction, after a trial period and after the system was running properly, in 1977, after lengthy consultations between the federal and provincial Governments, we developed a financing formula which effectively confirmed provincial jurisdiction in these areas.
This is why, in addition to fiscal transfers, there was what was called block funding, or unconditional transfers, and the best way that we found to determine the rate of growth of these transfers was to use the growth rate of the Gross National Product. This is what we did in 1977 and the system has worked well. I am not saying that every action taken by the Liberal Government should be defended at all costs, but this system has worked well. Now, it is being put aside by people who are
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
saying: "From now on, the standard will no longer be the Gross National Product, it will be the GNP minus 2 per cent". Big deal!
What is the basis for a formula where transfers to such important sectors as post-secondary education and health care have to be restricted to a rate of growth lower than the Gross National Product? What evidence was there to decide that the growth rate would be the GNP minus 2 per cent?
Quite simply the federal Government has decided to wash its hands off the whole thing, pass its deficit along to the Finance Ministers and they in turn will have to tell their colleagues responsible for health and education: Well, you will have to come up with a sizeable increase in university fees, perhaps impose some in junior colleges, including CEGEPs in Quebec. In the health sector, will they now collect user fees from patients in hospital rooms? Are they going to slash hospital emergency services which are already overburdened? Will the fiat of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) mean that the people will have to get ready for mandatory user fees in legislation?
Mr. Speaker, the way the federal Government is acting-the Minister of Finance was right and again I quote him: This is no longer co-operative federalism, but predatory federalism under which the central Government robs the provinces of their full jurisdiction in such sectors as health and post-secondary education.
Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, a province like Prince Edward Island which cannot afford to lose those millions and yet will have to finance health and post-secondary education services with $40 million less between now and 1991-92? And what about a province like New Brunswick which stands to lose $228 million?
Mr. Speaker, the provinces cannot reasonably be told: We are taking those funds from you, but continue to provide the same quality of service.
That is why I urge the House to adopt this motion so that we may honour the commitments contained in the documents published by the Minister of Finance in November 1984 to the effect that there would be no reduction in transfer payments for 1986-87. Thus we will have at least a year, but if that is too much the motion provides for six months and that time will be available to the Minister of Finance to sit down with his provincial counterparts and decide how they will go about reducing health and post-secondary education services to comply with Bill C-96.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words about other issues related to this Bill.
We should obviously limit our comments to the motion calling for the review of this Bill six months hence, but when

April 28, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
we consider the needs which exist now among Canadians for health care and post-secondary education, when we realize just how necessary research is today, how important university teaching and research are, I just cannot see how the Government can foresee any long term growth for Canada if it does not provide young Canadians with the funding that is required to offer them this kind of education services.
Mr. Speaker, as far as health services are concerned, it's a fact that in all provinces-it's true for Quebec, Ontario and all the other provinces-there is not an excess but rather a shortage of hospital beds. The Ontario Premier has even informed the people in his province that because of the federal Government's decision, they will have to cut 75,000 beds. Mr. Speaker, I say that there is more involved here than the need to reduce the deficit. That is an in-depth analysis of the services which I deem essential, the financing of which we should review at this time on a more permanent basis, together with a more constant federal commitment. Because, when the provinces accepted the change from the previous system to the new one that was incorporated in the 1977 legislation, they had taken for granted that the federal Government would assume its responsibility for a long enough period of time to allow them to plan accordingly. This Bill, like a bull in a china shop, completely disrupts the planning of the provinces and forces them to assume the costs all by themselves or else to reduce in an injustified fashion the quality of the service they are offering to the Canadian people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions and comments until 1.06 p.m. The Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote) has the floor.


Mr. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides whether the arithmetic he used when he was the president of a bank was the same as the arithmetic he is using here. In the House, the Hon. Member showed that he juggles his figures the same way he did in the Quebec National Assembly when he was Minister of Finance. Of course that is because of the deficits he piled up in Quebec, and now he would like to continue along those lines and follow the example of his predecessors.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides whether he remembers learning addition and subtraction in the second and third grade. Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about an increase of $25 billion between 1986-86 and 1990-91-maybe he doesn't know what a billion is but $25 billion is 2,500 million-is that more or is that less? Is the Canadian Government going to give more or is it going to give less to the provinces? What the Minister of Finance has suggested is a moderated increase. Between 1985 and 1990, is that more or is that less, Mr. Speaker? Thank goodness the Hon. Member is not a member of Cabinet, because we would never get around to reducing the deficit and this country's debt. Things would go on exactly the same way they did under the Hon. Member's predecessors and when he was in Quebec.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I could get into a discussion with the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean, but it is obvious that he wears blinders and can only see the deficit. What I can tell him is that the formula prescribed in the 1977 Act and amended by Bill C-96 provided that provincial transfers for post-secondary education and health care programs would increase at the same rate as the Gross National Product. This is what the provincial governments used to plan ahead and develop their five-year plans. There is one thing that we must not forget, and that is that, as far as health care is concerned, and 1 imagine that it is still the case, when I was at the Quebec Provincial Assembly which I left a number of years ago, there were five-year plans for the development of hospital care, of senior citizens' homes, and everything else in the social field. Today, after certain decisions have been made ... Let us take for instance, the most recent decisions of the provincial government as concerns emergency services, which are overcrowded in most Quebec hospitals, and it is probably the case elsewhere. The provincial government made its decision in the belief that the Fiscal Arrangements Act would remain unchanged, and at the time, the Act provided for transfers based on the rate of growth of the Gross National Product. Now, the provinces have been told that it will be based on the GNP minus two. If that is not a cutback, Mr. Speaker, I do not know what is.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. It being 1:06 p.m., I do now leave the Chair until 2 o'clock this day.
At 1:06 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, a report in The Toronto Star on Friday suggests that Cabinet may soon be announcing a government response to the issue of Japanese-Canadian redress. I have had an opportunity of discussing this proposal with the President of the National Association of Japanese Canadians. It is absurd and surprising to find that the association has no idea of this imminent proposal. Again it is on the outside looking in.
I find it simply absurd, because here is a Government which said it would actually consult and negotiate with this particular association in order to formalize an agreement. To a certain degree, but on a different level, history is again repeating itself in that we have a Government which is
April 28, 1986

basically saying to this community: "Don't worry. We know what is good for you". The Government has to understand that process is almost as important as substance. This community needs to be consulted. It needs to be negotiated with-


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



OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, today, April 28, is observed by the union movement as a day of mourning in remembrance of the thousands of workers killed and the millions of workers injured on the job. Today marks the seventy-second anniversary of the passage of the first workers' compensation legislation in Canada. This day is being observed as the national convention of the Canadian Labour Congress opens in Toronto. However, the Government has not seen fit to designate it as a national day of mourning.
Progress has been made in the field of health and safety in past years. However, we cannot become complacent-there is still a long way to go to provide protection for Canadian workers. Deaths from industrial injuries are still running around 1,000 a year, and every year there are approximately one million workers injured. This represents an injury every six seconds, and a death every two hours of the working day.
Injuries in the Canadian forestry industry have been extremely high this year. Industrial accidents and mining accidents are occurring too frequently. In British Columbia fishermen are seeking the right to receive compensation from the Workers' Compensation Board.
Injury is not confined to those in the industrial sector. Contrary to popular belief-


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



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have just returned from a fact-finding trip to Washington where the U.S. Farm Bill, freer trade, et cetera, were discussed. All the people we talked to, who included the U.S. Secretary of Agriculture, the Hon. Richard E. Lyng, politicians, farm groups, bankers, and others agreed on two points. The first is that there is a surplus of agricultural products in the world and the United States is going to get rid of its surplus by selling cheap and by taking land out of production. The second point
is that this move will affect Canadian agriculture from coast to coast.
Our Government must meet this challenge to our very important agriculture economy. I ask that an agriculture emergency committee be formed by knowledgeable individuals, including MPs, to deal with interest rates, fuel costs, fertilizer costs, and all input costs as a result of Government policies, as well as land use.
We cannot have freer trade if our farmers cannot-


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



PORNOGRAPHY


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to advise all Canadians about the vital battle against pornography which is being fought by members of Project "P". Project "P" is a small, four-person joint forces project staffed by Sergeant Wendy Leaver and Constable John Matthews of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force, and Detective Sergeant Ted Bean and Constable Cy Wood of the Ontario Provincial Police. Project "P" was started in 1975 and is the only unit of its kind in Canada to combat violent hard-core pornography.
I held a policy forum in my riding of Don Valley East just last Saturday. Sergeant Wendy Leaver was present to show examples of the shocking hard-core violent pornography which is all too readily available in Canada in the form of magazines and video tapes. We urge the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) to bring in tough legislation to deal effectively with this problem which is eroding the quality of life here in this great country of Canada.



CANADIAN COAST GUARD


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, the promise the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made during the last election was jobs, jobs, jobs. Yet all across the country the Government has cut back on government services, thereby eliminating jobs. This has been particularly disastrous in remote communities.
In the community of Cartwright on the coast of Labrador the Government is closing the Coast Guard station, and this means that eight families will have to move out of that community. Eight are only a few but represent one-eighth of

April 28, 1986
the employment in that particular community where, during the winter, the unemployment rate can be as high as 80 per cent.
The Government cannot have it both ways. It cannot be for jobs and then cut back on government services, particularly in remote areas. I call on the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to delay any move of the Coast Guard out of Cartwright until he can assure the people of that community that there will be no negative impact on the community.



VOLUNTEERS' WEEK


Clément M. Côté: Mr. Speaker, last week was "Volunteers Week".
I should like to pay tribute to all those men and women who give their time for the welfare of the community. In a world which is much too often egotistic, where too many people are thinking of only themselves, this "Volunteers' Week" serves to remind us that there is more on earth than the "self of each and everyone of us.
We are lucky to live in Canada, for Canadian men and women rank among the greatest voluntary workers in the world.
Let's have a look around us, Mr. Speaker. Volunteers are everywhere involved in medical and humanitarian services, arts and culture, sports, leisure, and many other areas of activities.
Tens of thousands of our fellow Canadians are contributing to the progress and welfare of our society through their volunteer action.
To all these people, we say thank you.



MULTICULTURALISM


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Jelinek) has launched a new initiative entitled "Multiculturalism Means Business". He is hopeful that drawing on Canada's ethnocultural diversity will enhance Canada's trade efforts.
The Minister clearly does not appreciate the existing importance of ethnocultural business activity. He thinks that the ethnic minorities need to be brought out of their isolation if they are to enrich Canada. These attitudes reflect the Minister's own distance from Canada's ethnocultural diversity. They reflect his failure to appreciate how this diversity is already expressed in businesses of many sorts.
These businesses, most of them small, can certainly use more capital. The Minister should join with his colleague in finding ways to provide the resources they need. The Government could do much more for them other than emphasizing how the talents of our cultural and racial groups can serve big business. The ethnocultural businesses also need strong markets, and the Minister can assist in the growth of their communities. Employment equity, which would increase incomes in these communities, is only one of the areas in which the Government makes a good pitch but fails to deliver the goods.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer appreciation as well as to express a serious concern. Bell Canada showed responsibility as a good corporate citizen when it blocked access to five 900 numbers which offered taped messages of graphic descriptions of sexual fantasies.
Presently the CRTC is considering whether or not it will permit 900 service on a permanent basis. Although most 900 services are legitimate, the CRTC must block the reintroduction of these sex lines.
I am concerned with the increase in offensive advertising for escort services in the Yellow Pages, particularly in the Toronto area. According to a recent report, the Metro Toronto Police estimate that 98 per cent of the escort services are a front for prostitution. Under the guise of legitimate businesses they even accept major credit cards.
I call upon the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) to tighten the Criminal Code, thus preventing such offensive advertising in the Yellow Pages.
Tele-Direct, the company which produces the Toronto directory Yellow Pages, should take a lesson from Bell Canada. Let us not let prostitutes go walking through the Yellow Pages.
April 28, 1986



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: If I may, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer the House to the remarks made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) at the Canadian Press annual dinner in Toronto, and I quote:
Our goals are not limited to the Canadian economy. We wish to cure the ills and ease the pains and sufferings which affect so many people in our own country and abroad.
We want to feed a world that is starving and undertake to eliminate poverty, oppression and racism everywhere on this planet.
We want to see a united world to start exploring and developing space. We want the arms race to end and a lasting peace to begin.
We are launching a national offensive to help prepare our country to enter the new world of the 21st century. We are going to take up this challenge, because our children and our country deserve nothing less.
Those are words which deserve to be broadcasted everywhere throughout Canada.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians of the Sikh religion are concerned about reports that the Armed Forces have not observed the terms of the 1979 agreement with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, according to which Sikhs who join the forces will be allowed to maintain their religious practices.
According to our policy of multiculturalism, all Canadians have a right to participate fully in the life of our country, and this includes the right to defend our country as a member of the Armed Forces. We have a charter which prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. As a society, we are committed to equality of opportunity for all.
In the interests of upholding existing policy and sending a positive signal to ethnocultural communities in Canada, I hope officials of the Department of National Defence will indicate clearly by word and deed their intention to abide by the terms of the 1979 agreement, and make it possible for Sikh recruits to maintain their religious practices in all aspects of military life.



S.O. 21 TRADE CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-U.S. TARIFF THREAT TO LUMBER EXPORTS

Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, Canada-U.S. trade means jobs. An enhanced trade agreement with our largest trading partner will mean security for Canadian jobs. The decision of the U.S. Senate Finance Committee to pursue fast track negotiations with Canada is a giant leap toward enhanced trade.
The recommendation of the U.S. International Trade Commission for a 35 per cent tariff on Canadian red cedar shakes and shingles is a threat to jobs in British Columbia, in particular to Mission-Port Moody, the heart of Canada's shake and single industry. While trade negotiations will not in the meantime preclude traditional action against Canadian exports, they will lessen the threat. We are speaking of the lifeblood of the British Columbia economy.



POLITICAL PARTIES


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) has been quoted as saying that he challenges the whole idea of universal programs. This is not the First time we have seen a flip-flop among Liberal Members. We do not know where the Liberal caucus stands on Cruise testing in Canada. We do not know where the Liberal caucus stands on free trade.
There are many areas in which the question is not where the Liberals are going; it is which way are they turning. The Liberals must answer that question.



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-HISTORIC OPPORTUNITY

Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, congratulations to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) are in order. Freer trade with our neighbours south of the border will be of great benefit to all Canadians, especially those in my home Province of Alberta. Last year alone a full 85 per cent of Alberta's exports went to the United States. In Alberta, as in the rest of Canada, the establishment of freer trade will enhance economic growth, increase employment, make our industries more competitive on the world market, and help secure access to U.S. markets.
Indeed this is an historic opportunity. Future generations of Canadians may look upon our actions today as the point at

April 28, 1986
Oral Questions
which the Government took hold of our national destiny. Canada will not accept a deal which is not good for all Canadians.
I applaud the successful efforts of the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues to secure ongoing negotiations between Canada and the United States without having to concede demands for preconditions.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the latest count on nuclear tests held so far shows that India has held one; China, 29; the U.K., 38; France, 129; the Soviet Union, 556; and the United States, 759, for a total of 1,512.
The silence of Canada's Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) on the most recent French and American nuclear tests is deafening. Have we lost interest in banning nuclear tests? If not, why are we silent? Is it because of the trade negotiations with the U.S., or would it be that since the 1984 election policy on nuclear testing is no longer made in Ottawa? How can Canada's Secretary of State for External Affairs remain silent in view of the last three underground nuclear tests?
We pride ourselves on being an active member of the global community. Therefore the Government of Canada must speak up on nuclear testing and reflect the sentiments of concerned Canadians.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister. There has just been released in Washington a letter from Ronald Reagan to Senator Packwood dated April 24 which reads, in part:
During Prime Minister Mulroney's recent visit to this country, he and I agreed that we would attempt to initiate comprehensive bilateral trade negotiations between our two nations on a "clean launch" basis. We believe it is in the best interest of all of us to have everything on the table when the negotiations begin, and to start without preconditions on either side.
Is that the Government's position? Does the Deputy Prime Minister agree with President Reagan on this? Is Reagan speaking for both himself and the Prime Minister? I would like the Deputy Prime Minister to come clean with Canadians because, if that is the case, and President Reagan said it is, it
is quite a change from what they have been saying on some areas like the Auto Pact, agricultural marketing, and a whole number of other areas.?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the views of the Government and its position have been made known repeatedly week after week after week on this matter, by the Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and the Minister for International Trade. I do not know where the Hon. Member is having his problem, but that question, Sir, has been answered repeatedly.


CANADIAN NEGOTIATOR'S STATEMENT
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that it is correct, that Ambassador Reisman was speaking for the Government when, on Thursday, April 23, he told CTV
News:
Both sides would be willing to talk about all those things that the other side wished to talk about. In other words, everything on the table.
It is now a fact that everything is on the table. That must be the case from what the Deputy Prime Minister said and from what Ambassador Reisman said last week.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, if the House Leader of the Opposition would like to put a question, I would be very pleased to try to deal with it.


REASONS FOR NEGOTIATIONS
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, President Reagan in his letter to Senator Packwood said:
We continue to retain full access to multilaterally sanctioned United States trade remedies.
My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What is the point of having a general trade agreement with the United States if the result of it will be that the United States will still be able to impose countervailing duties on our exports in areas such as lumber, and fish, and even specialty steel? The United States says no preconditions for us, but the Americans have preconditions. How is this equal for Canadians?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, not for the first time the Liberal Party is misinterpreting the letter of the President. That letter stands on its own. It is understandable by any intelligent Canadian. The Hon. Member is raising a set of fears that are groundless.


COUNTERVAIL DUTIES
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. One of the strongest weapons the U. S. has been using to restrict entry of foreign goods onto its market has been countervail duties. The Americans have been using them on Israel, a country that has a free trade agreement with the United
April 28, 1986

States. Will the Government assure us that any free trade agreement entered into with the U. S. will contain clauses explicitly banning the use of countervail duties against Canadian goods?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, countervail is very much at the heart of these negotiations. That is one of the reasons why we are seeking to enter into negotiations with the United States. I thought that was well understood.


FREE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES- CONTERVAILING DUTIES
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, the Government cannot refuse to shed light on its position on the use of countervailing duties by the United States.
Again I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs: Is the position of the Canadian Government such as to let the United states levy countervailing duties in retaliation under a free trade agreement with our country? It is a basic question to which we must have an answer.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, questions related to countervailing action are an essential aspect of the negotiations. It is a negotiable question. It was made clear from the outset and the situation has not changed.


UNITED STATES PRESIDENT'S LETTER
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, that is the basic point. To let the U.S. continue threats of countervailing duties while the talks are going on is like permitting war to continue while you are discussing a ceasefire.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steven W. Langdon: Let me put the question.


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


Steven W. Langdon: They may not like the fact but it is real. Is the Minister aware of the letter President Reagan sent to the Senators whose support he got last week in which he made a commitment to countervailing action? Is the Minister prepared to say to the President what he has just said to the House, that countervailing action is at the heart of negotiations and should not be used while the talks are taking place?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the letter. From what the Hon. Member has said I do not think he could have read it. Regarding the other part of his question, let me paraphrase
Oral Questions
that well-known American philosopher and tell the Hon. Member that a negotiation "ain't over 'til it's over".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, a war is not over until it's over either.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steven W. Langdon: That is what you are not discussing. This is not a clean launch; it is a scorched-earth launch the Government has taken us into.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT LODGE PROTEST
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, given that these threats will continue, will the Government protest to President Reagan and attempt to get a clear commitment from him that threats of countervailing action will not be made against our producers during the long period of negotiations?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if we could stop the threat of countervailing action before the negotiations, there would be no need for negotiations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I do not know what kind of dream world the Hon. Member and the NDP inhabit. In the real world we are faced with some very serious threats, including countervailing action, from the U.S. We intend to seek trade arrangements which will provide Canadians guarantees against some of those threats. That is what a negotiation is about.
The NDP, for ideological reasons, have been against progress to secure Canadian jobs from the outset. If they want to take that position, that is fine. However, they should not dwell in this cloud-cuckoo-land which has characterized their thinking.


Steven W. Langdon: What has happened is that the Government has attempted to obscure this whole question throughout.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, my question is as follows: Will the Government now admit that it is not a flawless beginning, but a beginning fraught with mistakes?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, we are-and I apologize for the quality of my French from High River-but we are engaged in negotiations without preconditions so as to achieve concrete benefits for Canadians.

April 28, 1986
Oral Questions


UNITED STATES-ISRAEL AGREEMENT
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Is it not true that the only free trade agreement ever entered into between the U.S. and another sovereign country is the one with the State of Israel? In that agreement the United States refused to give up the right to impose countervail. Why should Canadians expect the U.S. Government to treat Canada any differently?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, there has been an agreement established between the United States and Israel. We are seeking the conclusion of a different kind of agreement between Canada and the United States. If what is brought forward at the end of the negotiations is not in the best interests of Canada then, of course, this Government will not accept it. We believe we have a duty, given the threat to Canadian jobs, and Canadian security, to enter into negotiations that can provide a more secure future for Canadians, and that is what we are doing.


COUNTERVAIL DUTIES
Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister not agree that any trading agreement reached between Canada and the United States that does not exclude countervail will be unacceptable to the Canadian Parliament and to the Canadian people?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have said on several occasions that the question of countervail is at the heart of the negotiations. It is one of the reasons we are interested in dealing with the United States. That has been clear from the beginning of these discussions.


CANADIAN LUMBER EXPORTS
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Tens of thousands of jobs are at stake in British Columbia if the lumber industry is not allowed to continue at its present level, and yet in the U.S. its trade representative said that this matter will be solved within weeks. Could the Minister give this House his assurance that there will be no lumber talks in advance of the free trade negotiations and Canada will not, in fact, sell out British Columbia and the lumber industry in Canada?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, not very long ago in this House we were being asked for assurances that the discussions about lumber would not be part of the negotiations with the United States. Now we are being asked that discussions about lumber not be
part of anything at all. The NDP has got to come out of cloud-cuckoo-land and deal with the reality of the modern world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. With tens of thousands of jobs at stake, this is no laughing matter. I wish the Minister would get to the point and give this House the assurance that these free trade negotiations with the United States will not be separate from the discussion on the lumber issue? Will he give this House the assurance that the Government does not intend to sell out Canadian lumber in advance of the free trade talks in order to facilitate them?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this Government does not intend to sell out Canadian lumber at any time.


TERRORISM
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Over the weekend I participated in a conference on terrorism at the military college. That is not the source of this bandage.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. Perhaps the House could show some sympathy to the Member and let him put his question.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, some statements were made by speakers at that conference with which the Solicitor General has publicly disagreed, about the level of threat in Canada. This morning the Solicitor General announced publicly that he is sending in the Mounties or CSIS to interrogate the speakers with whom he disagrees. I want to ask him if he does not recognize this as a form of intimidation that can discourage free discussion of security matters.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to welcome the hon. gentleman back safely. As the Hon. Member indicated with his preliminary remarks when he said he spoke at the conference, the quality of participation varied over the course of the weekend. Unfortunately, over the course of that time there were comments made which received a good deal of attention. I think the hon. gentleman would feel that I was negligent if I did not pursue such claims as Expo 86 being targeted by terrorists, large numbers of the Baader Meinhof gang being in Canada, or there being massive amounts of direct action in Canada. Obviously, if the Government did not attempt to confirm or deny such claims to ensure that the sources from
April 28, 1986

which they were made were valid, the hon. gentleman would accuse me of being negligent in discharging my responsibilities.


MINISTER'S ANNOUNCEMENT
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, it is one thing to check statements that are made at conferences but to announce publicly, as the Minister did, that the Mounties and the security service are going to interrogate the speakers with whom he disagreed, is quite another. Will the Minister agree that that is a wrong approach and that it does not serve public debate in Canada to announce that people will be interrogated for expressing views?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could say that I expected better of the hon. gentleman with regard to the sort of question he just put. Unfortunately, I cannot do so on the basis of experience.
The hon. gentleman should know that I did not say to the press that I would be sending in the police to interrogate people with whom I disagreed. Otherwise, they would have been around to see him by now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Tobin:: Pompous toddler of the Cabinet.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Throw the bum out for this nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In last week's meetings with the United States Department of Agriculture officials to discuss the effects of the Farm Bill, 12 Members of Parliament from Ottawa were present to hear what would be the United States' approach to bilateral trade talks. In view of the fact that senior American agriculture officials told us that Canada is going to get the message "just like we sent the Libyans a message", what is Canada's response to this scorched earth attitude on the part of the United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to a conversation which he alleges took place with American officials when I was not present. If he is asking about the position of the Government on the U.S. Farm Bill, we have made it clear frequently and intend to continue to make it
Oral Questions
clear frequently, that we believe that the United States Farm Bill, coupled with the trade war in agriculture developing between the European Community and the United States, poses very grave threats to the interests of Canadian agriculture. We intend to make that case generally and we intend to make that case specifically, particularly in defence of traditional Canadian grain markets.


CANADIAN POSITION
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, the Americans went on to spell out four specific irritants that they called "logs, hogs, spuds, and suds" which must be dealt with to the satisfaction of the United States before any serious negotiations-


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


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: What position is our Government taking, given this apparently new attitude by the Government of the United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the persons to whom the Hon. Member was speaking were involved in a conversation that took place before the U.S. Senate had its vote last week. The Hon. Member was talking about conditions before negotiations would begin. He will know that negotiations have begun, and he will know that those negotiations have begun absolutely without preconditions.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment my question is directed to his Parliamentary Secretary. A report was published today saying that a new form of rain called toxic rain is affecting our health by way of contamination of the food chain. This report confirms the finding in an Environment Canada pamphlet called Storm Warning which the Minister banned last December as non-factual. Will the Minister face the facts and lift the ban on the distribution of Storm Warning'1


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the publication Storm Warning contained a good deal of information, much of which has been understood and dealt with by Environment Canada over a long period of time. The removal of that particular publication was as a result of the Minister of the Environment and the Department of the Environment wanting to ensure that the public information that was brought forward was

April 28, 1986
Oral Questions
based on the best and most factual information possible. We will continue to maintain that position.


PUBLICATIONS POLICY
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, will the Parliamentary Secretary make representations to his Minister to convince him to lift this policy of muzzling Environment Canada scientists, and allow the Department to publish and distribute its own publications?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, if the Member for Davenport, who is the Liberal critic, will look at his guidelines governing the activities of civil servants under his jurisdiction when he was Minister of the Environment, he will understand that this Government and this Minister are acting in precisely the same way and that we are ensuring that public information is made available through our bureaucracy in the most factual and responsible way possible.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion concerning the permanent lay-off this coming Saturday of 167 employees at the Northern Telecom plant in Aylmer. Is the Government pleased to accept that a large Canadian corporation should lay off people right here in Aylmer while at the same time transferring their jobs to the twin plant in Georgia, U.S.A.? Or is the Government ready to step in to ensure that Canadian workers can continue to manufacture in Canada products that were developed in Canada?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I can only assure the Hon. Member that I will take his question as notice and this afternoon I will check into the circumstances to which he has referred.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET UNION REPRESENTATIVES
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, the union representing the workers has tried without success to arrange a meeting with the Minister through the Member for Gatineau and the Minister's office. Will he agree to meet with the representatives of these workers before the lay-offs take place on May 3, particularly when 450 jobs have been lost in the Aylmer plant in the course of the last year-more than the Gulf refinery?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as I said in response to the Hon. Member's first question, I will look into this matter this afternoon.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. The Export Enhancement Program under the U.S. Farm Bill has been used to take away sales of Canadian wheat and other products to Syria, Algeria, and potentially other places very soon. The U.S. Farm Bill could be described as a very well orchestrated attempt at intimidating us before the free trade negotiations commence. What representations, if any, has the Minister made to the United States Government in the last week or two to ensure that these kinds of predatory practices are never repeated for the duration of this unfortunate U.S. Farm Bill?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raises a serious matter. He should know that we have raised this question with the Americans not only in the last couple of weeks but as long ago as last June when the BICEP program was first announced. We sought and received assurances from the Americans at that time that they would not target the BICEP program at Canadian markets.
The Hon. Member talks about Algeria. He should know that over the past 10 years we have sold varying amounts of grain to Algeria; from 335 million tonnes in 1978-79 to as much as 813 million tonnes in 1983-84. The amount we have sold to Algeria has fluctuated, depending on the year and how they were buying, without the BICEP program being in effect.


EFFECT ON CANADA
Don Boudria: Canada was not targeted as one of the so-called offenders against which the U.S. Farm Bill would retaliate, will the Minister indicate what caused the Americans to change their minds and retaliate by using these predatory practices against Canada? What is it that changed the minds of the Americans?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I am not so sure that the Americans have changed their minds. The Hon. Member should know that last year the Canadian Wheat Board sold grain to over 60 countries. This year, for the first time, we are selling some feed wheat to South Korea which has traditionally been an American market.
If the Hon. Member were to balance his concern about our markets, in my opinion the European Community is the main


*
April 28, 1986

offender. We used to sell almost 3 million tonnes to them. In the last year we sold them a little over one million tonnes. Our main concern is what is going on between the European Community and the Americans, not solely with how the Americans are behaving.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Guy Ricard: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Recently in Montreal, Consolidated Aviation Fueling and Services had to reduce by 67 per cent its wage benefit package to be able to submit a competitive bid to Air Canada for refueling at Dorval and Mirabel Airports. Is the Minister aware of that and, if so, is he intending to find a solution to that important problem?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the Hon. Member's concern. The practice to which he refers is the practice of tendering carried on by all Departments of Government in order to secure the best cost effective package they can. In some cases retendering of existing contracts have caused those companies to have to bring in a lower bid. It is open to all. There is nothing which is not ongoing about the tendering process. I am aware of it. It is a practice to provide the Canadian taxpayers with a good and economic use of their dollars.


SUBSIDIZED UNITED STATES FLOUR SALE TO YEMEN
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. Last Friday I told the House about the Americans selling wheat to Algeria with a massive subsidy. I now have a list of several more countries which are taking advantage of these American subsidies. Is the Minister aware that in January or February, just a few months ago, the Americans sold flour to Yemen for $168 per ton, with a subsidy of $123 per ton? If he is aware of that, can he tell us how our farmers can possibly compete? Is the Government now ready to come forth with a deficiency payment so farmers in western Canada can stay on the land?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, we are aware of those kinds of subsidies. The Hon. Member should also know that, because of the kind of reputation Canada has and the good standing of the Canadian Wheat Board, we were able to sign last year the first
Oral Questions
long-term agreement ever with Egypt. The Hon. Member should also know that as of the middle of last month, midMarch, the European Community was subsidizing barley to the tune of $151 Canadian per ton and subsidizing wheat to the tune of $131 Canadian per ton. So there are massive subsidies as far as the Europeans are concerned.
If the Hon. Member wants to know who is subsidizing the most, to my mind, again it is the Europeans who are the main culprits.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Well, we have our two bad boys then.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER ANNOUNCE DEFICIENCY PAYMENT FOR WESTERN FARMERS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Is the Minister aware that the list I have contains subsidies to countries like Egypt, Turkey, the Philippines, Zaire, Iraq and Morocco, in addition to Algeria and Yemen? If the Minister is aware of that will he now agree that the time has come to provide the farmers of western Canada with a deficiency payment? Will the Minister answer that specific question?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, we have the same list. I keep up to date on a daily basis with what is going on. We also keep up to date in terms of letting the Americans know our concerns. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Prime Minister are also raising those issues. We are doing what we think is appropriate in the circumstances but doing it in such a way that we can continue to have discussions not only with the Americans but with the Europeans. With regard to a deficiency payment, I have said before that we think our record in terms of addressing agricultural concerns is substantial, and within the limits of the fiscal situation, as the Prime Minister said, we would like to do more.


THREAT POSED BY UNITED STATES ACTIONS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister will recall that a year and a half ago the Prime Minister said to Canadians that: "You can bet your bottom dollar that when American protectionist pressures are brought to bear on the world, Canada will not be targeted". Given the Minister's statement a few moments ago that Canada is facing a very serious threat from the United States, would the Minister tell us if the Prime Minister was living in cuckoo land last year when he made that statement? Or has the Minister bungled the negotiations so badly that we have gone from no threat to a very serious threat in the course of 12 months?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quoting the Prime Minister out of context and he knows it.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister's fatuous and flippant manner of dealing with a serious question is-

April 28, 1986
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Just a question.


CONTENT OF NEGOTIATIONS
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the President of the United States has said that everything is on the table in these negotiations in his letter to Senator Packwood. Does that mean that Canadian culture and Canadian regional development programs are on the table in these negotations? You cannot have it both ways. Give us a straight answer.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, first, the Hon. Member owes it to this House, if he expects to begin to be taken seriously, that when he quotes Ministers or anyone else, to give full quotations. Second, the Government of Canada has made it very clear that matters which are not trade matters, the nature of our culture, our Industrial Development Programs and our Unemployment Insurance Programs, are naturally not at issue in a trade negotiation. Trade matters are.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the Minister report to the House on the present status of the two Canadians who were detained by the Salvadorian Army?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, given just a moment I will do exactly that. It is a serious question and I appreciate it. Two Canadians who were arrested Monday, April 24, when they went into Lempa in the Province of Chalatenango, a zone declared a war zone, without either special permits or prior authorization to enter. Since then the two Canadians were released, on April 24, and they are believed to be continuing their journalism project on war refugees.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary. It relates again to the study released today by the Canadian Environmental Law Research Foundation with regard to the whole question of toxic rain. Would the Parliamentary Secretary advise the House whether
the new proposed Environmental Contaminants Act will deal with this problem and effectively eliminate the health threat posed to Canadians by this toxic rain?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, the report which was released today has not yet been fully assessed by our Department nor by the Minister. However, it includes those things which we in fact have been addressing over a period of a year and a half or more in the Department of the Environment in coming up with solutions. The basic point in question is the coverage or management of our toxic chemicals from the very inception, or "cradle", if you like, to their final destruction, or to the grave. This will very much be a part of the new Environmental Contaminants Act and Environmental Protection Act which we are now considering.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-U.S. PRESIDENT'S LETTER-COST OF PRESCRIPTION DRUGS
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In his letter to Senator Packwood, President Reagan said: "We will want to make sure the outcome provides for comparable treatment for American and Canadian investment and intellectual property rights in both countries". Does the President mean by this that he expects the Government of Canada will cave into the heavy lobby from American pharmaceuticals? And does that mean that the policy under which Canadians now save $200 million a year on prescription drugs will change and that Canadians will have to pay higher prices after these talks are over?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I interpret that portion of the President's letter to Senator Packwood, as I think most fair-minded people do, as being the setting out of American objectives. Canadian objectives on some of these questions, including investment questions, are different. Naturally the President of the United States has the right to speak for his objectives, as we do for ours.


REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. If this means that Canadians will continue to enjoy the same low prices for presciption drugs, and if the talks are now going ahead, will the Minister bring forward a Bill so we can see what is there and assure Canadians that, indeed, their low prices for prescription drugs will be protected?
April 28, 1986

[ Translation]


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Canada Post):: Mr. Speaker, I think that when the Government arrives at a decision, we will be pleased to come to this House and make a public announcement.


OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. As the Minister is aware, in 1984, the last year for which we have figures, one out of nine Canadian workers suffered a very serious injury at work. In June of that year we passed legislation which said that there will be an advisory council on occupational health and safety. Why has the Government not set up that commission?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, in proclaiming the changes to Part IV of the Canadian Labour Code impacting upon occupational health and safety, the decision to establish an advisory council was delayed. I have informed the Canadian Labour Congress and the Canadian Federation of Labour that the first priority is to have the committees established, implement the new code, have it understood and get it into the workplace. In this way it can do the job which the regulations and the legislation want it to do, that is, save lost time and the lives of individual Canadians who are in the workplace.
To have the code implemented is the first priority of the Government. The advisory council will be established at a later date.


REQUEST THAT COUNCIL BE ESTABLISHED IMMEDIATELY
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. Is the Minister aware that when his own officials appeared before committee last week they indicated that the reason the Minister had not gone forward with this matter was because the Government wanted to save money? It was not because of priorities in terms of what has to be done first, but because the Government wants to save money. What about the lives of Canadian workers? Why not set up the advisory council now? The legislation was passed two years ago.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the Hon. Member had a supplementary question to ask before he heard the answer to his first question.
It is our priority to establish the new code in the workplace so that working men and women can understand and benefit from the changes to it. The second priority is to establish an
Oral Questions
advisory council. The Hon. Member does not understand that an advisory council advises. The committees which will be established in the workplace will be on-site committees, taking practical steps to save men and women from harm in the workplace. The Hon. Member should understand that. Most people who work in Canada do.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The work of the Nielsen task force in reviewing almost 1,000 projects and programs to identify waste and inefficiencies was certainly welcomed by all Canadians. Since all the options and recommendations have been referred to the various appropriate standing committees, how will the process be monitored? Is there an over-all deadline in regard to responding to the findings of the task force?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member has said, the various reports have been referred to the appropriate committees. They progress through the committees will be monitored by the Ministers themselves.
In addition, the President of the Treasury Board, as well as the chairman of the task force, and myself, will also be monitoring the process to ensure that we obtain the maximum effect out of these excellent reports.


NEWFOUNDLAND OFFSHORE DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. Last week businessmen in Newfoundland held a news conference to talk about the loss of jobs, investments being destroyed, and companies in default, all relating to the offshore industry. They asked the Government to step in to work with the industry in order to find immediately what they say are absolutely necessary solutions. Is the Government prepared to step in to find these solutions? If so, when?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, absolutely. I would have thought that the hon. gentleman would have known that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is in Atlantic Canada today meeting with his provincial counterparts in Saint John precisely for the purpose of identifying all these problems so that they can be addressed.

April 28, 1986
12702_________________________________
Oral Questions SECURITY OF SUPPLY


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, this matter does not relate to fisheries; it relates to offshore oil and Hibernia. The Deputy Prime Minister knows that the offshore development will die unless the Government provides incentives to keep it alive. Is the Government prepared to provide incentives to protect the security of supply for Canada and jobs for Newfoundlanders?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the Government is constantly addressing itself to these regional difficulties throughout the country. Even the Hon. Member must admit that in the short space of one year and a half that this Government has been in office it has made tremendous strides and progress toward achieving more regional balance.


MINES AND MINING
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Has the Minister accepted the invitation issued by the Ear Falls Action Committee and delivered by me to him two weeks ago in the House to visit the Ear Falls and Red Lake area to assess firsthand the employment prospects in that area, now that the Griffith Mine is permanently closed?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, I have addressed this particular problem. I have commented on the matter on a number of occasions in the House. If there is any further information which he wishes to bring to my attention, then I would be pleased to hear from him.


EMPLOYMENT PROSPECTS IN AREA
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, by having ignored the invitation is the Minister communicating to the House and to the people of Ear Falls that he stands by the inaccurate and misleading information that he gave the House concerning employment prospects in that area?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree at all with the premise of the question presented by the Hon. Member. As I said, if he has any difficulties or any differences with the material I have presented to the House, then I would be happy to hear from him.


CHALLENGE '86 SUMMER JOBS FOR STUDENTS-COMMUNITY PROJECTS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Employment and Immigration, whoever that might be. In a few weeks, students from all over the country will be finishing their exams and will be looking for work. With respect to the Challenge '86 program, the summer program for students, why is the Government imposing a low inflexible quota on community projects, projects to help the aged, the handicapped, and poor children when, in many communities, these are the principal and best projects? Why are these quotas in place?
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the Hon. Member's question and bring it to the attention of the responsible Minister.
The Hon. Member knows, as do other Members of the House, that the integrity of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and her ability to direct programs to those who can best use the dollars she puts forward so that they can find meaningful employment over the summer, are well recognized. I am sure the Hon. Member will not be disappointed with Challenge '86.


STUDENTS' RESPONSE TO NON-PROFIT PROJECTS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, a great many people are already disappointed because good projects have been rejected. Can the Minister of Labour pass this question on to the Minister as well? Why is the Government ignoring the evaluation which the Department of Employment and Immigration made with respect to Challenge '85 which showed that there was a better response among students to non-profit projects than to profit projects? Why does the Government not accept the recommendations of the evaluation report and put in place a more flexible quota for community projects?
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the Hon. Member that under the summer employment program for Challenge '86 some 1,413 students have been hired. With respect to the summer employment program, 9,471 students have been hired. With respect to the youth employment programs for the 1985-86 summer employment program, some 4,000 students have been hired for temporary employment. Some 3,400 have been hired for youth training.
The Hon. Member must recognize that these statistics are impressive. The Minister is not satisfied, but will do more-I can guarantee that-in this upcoming year than the previous administration did in its last four years.
April 28, 1986


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister. The Parliamentary Secretary is aware of the widespread opposition of cottagers, boaters, and farmers on the Rideau Lakes system to the issuance of water lot permits to the Three Buoys houseboats venture. On Saturday, in Perth, over 500 people signed a petition in opposition to the scheme. Can the Parliamentary Secretary assure the House that no such licences will be granted until a full and complete analysis has been made of the serious environmental and navigational issues raised?


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, we thank the Hon. Member for his ongoing concern about this issue which has created a good deal of interest among local cottagers and the local communities. The Township of North Burgess has been considering this proposal for some time. It has made recommendations to the Department of the Environment which the Minister is now considering.
I can assure the Hon. Member that if there is to be any development, or any water lot permits issued, it will done under the most stringent of guidelines and conditions. Any activity will be assessed in light of a proposition which the Minister now has before him that will go out into the community to ensure that there is a full understanding of all points of view with respect to this particular subject.


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During Question Period the Minister of Labour (Mr. McKnight) quoted from a document. The information seemed very interesting. I wonder if he will table that document. I believe there is a rule that if a Minister quotes from a document in the House of Commons then he should table it.
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I would like to assure the Hon. Member that the data contained in this document is so tremendous in that it shows what a great job the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) is doing, I would be only too pleased to make as many copies as he would like available to him.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Ouellet:: He said yes. Table it. Come on.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: I will make it available to the Hon. Member any time.


André Ouellet: Give it to us. Table it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I ask the Minister whether he was using an official Government document or notes?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I was using notes passed to me by the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) and I am assured that they are probably unofficial.


Mr. Speaker:: That practice has not changed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke-Centre) that Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal PostSecondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Mr. Murphy (p. 12683).
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. When the House adjourned, there were six minutes remaining in the question and answer period.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member who spoke on behalf of the Liberal Party. In this and other speeches, he has shown a great deal of concern for the fact that the Province of Quebec is not getting the 95 per cent level of funding it believes it was promised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) during the last election campaign. Would the Hon. Member not also agree that the reason the Province of Quebec is having these problems is that the previous Liberal Government changed the whole EPF structure in 1981 and 1982 and therefore reduced the amount of money that was going to Quebec as well as other provinces?
If I can summarize the question again for the Hon. Member who is now aware that I am asking him-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: He's being distracted by the noise. Order.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Would the Hon. Member not agree that the reason the cut-back is affecting Quebec and other provinces is that the previous Liberal Government cut funding for postsecondary education, medicare and equalization?
12704

April 28, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act [Translation]


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-96 does not affect the equalization formula as such, but if the Hon. Member wants to discuss that, I have no objection whatsoever.
You see, elections were held on September 4,1984, and if the party that previously was in power has made errors, I suppose the people passed judgment and there is the reason why in my view the actions of those in Government should be scrutinized.
When Bill C-39 concerning equalization payments was enacted last year, the Government had refused to extend the guarantee formula for interim payments provided for in the 1977 fiscal arrangements, as agreed upon in 1981-82.
Raising that issue of equalization payments and the injustice which we thought would result for Quebec, we questioned the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) and, in answers that are to be found in the House of Commons Debates for April, 1985, both of them made the commitment that in no case would any Province receive payments that would be lower than 95 per cent of those received for the previous year.
We are asking, and I had asked the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance, to honour their commitment and pay out to Quebec the monies it has lost because of that.
Of course, if we go back to the beginning of the fiscal arrangements between Canada and the Provinces, there have been a number of changes. But the one that was brought about in 1977 and that was based on the growth rate of the Gross National Product seemed to me as it seemed to the Provinces- because there was near-unanimity between the Provinces when that was done-to be the best way to solve a most complex problem of provincial jurisdiction, especially the issues of postsecondary education and, for once, we had a formula that respected that jurisdiction.
This is why I am most surprised to find in Bill C-96, after that formula being used for some time, that it is being changed unilaterally.


Guy Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to my colleague from Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). He says, and I think that we all agree with him, that the problem is not asking whether there are enough educational or hospital programs but how they will be financed. Now, he also says that he will support the motion giving the Bill a six-month hoist. Since we know that the problem is finding financing, is it really necessary to wait six months and have further consultations if such is really the problem or would it not be more advisable to consider how those programs should be financed?


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Ricard) has grasped the problem quite well.The financing of those programs is at issue and since Bill C-96 will cut off over $8 billion from 1986-87 to 1992,1 think that before setting out to study the matter, the situation at least as it now stands should be controlled. All the more so that it was suggested by the
Minister of Finance in his financial statement of November, 1984, since the figures that he provided clearly indicated that there would be no cut in 1986-87. Now if the Minister of Finance honoured his undertaking of November, 1984, we would have all the time we need to consider the matter and see if special taxes should be levied or if programs should be cut. I should like this to be done in an enlightened way so that the quality of services will be about the same throughout Canada.
At present, with Bill C-96, what will happen is that the provinces which have a larger tax base will maintain the quality of their health care and their postsecondary education programs while the poorer provinces will have to reduce their services. Besides, several of them have indicated that they will have to do so.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not with pleasure that I rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-96, a Bill which proposes to change the present federal EPF arrangements in such a fashion as to change the formula from an increase commensurate with the GNP to one which would allow increases which are 2 per cent less than the GNP on a per capita basis, except in those circumstances where inflation exceeds that amount on a percentage basis. In those circumstances, the amount of funds to be provided would be provided according to the old formula up to a maximum of the GNP change. This means, of course that in the event of significant inflation, the universities, colleges and health-care system would be placed in an even more difficult situation.
In response to complaints from this side of the House, we keep hearing that this Bill does not constitute a cut in the federal contributions to health care and universities. It is interesting to note that when I attempted to use an analogy this morning to put what is happening in a proper context, I received a peculiar answer from one of the Government Members. I asked the Hon. Member to suppose that he had been promised by his employer a 10 per cent increase in salary each year for the next five years but that in the middle of those five years the boss changed his mind and told him he would only receive 5 per cent. I asked him if he did not think that that was a cut and he said that that was not a cut, but a decrease. There is this peculiar differentiation between these two kinds of actions, a cut versus a decrease.
In my view a cut is a cut whether it is called a decrease or whatever. This is substantiated by the attitude which Hon. Members opposite adopted during the course of the debates on Bill C-97 and Bill C-12. I am sure those Bills were introduced by the then Government on the basis that they were not really cuts but decreases in the increase, which is jargon intended to obscure the realities. Of course members of the Tory Party at that time saw through it all. If one reads excerpts from their
April 28, 1986

speeches at the time, one finds phraseology which is as applicable and as appropriate now as it was then.
For example, we have one Member saying that at least one thing was clear with the new formula, that the federal Government would be getting a better deal than it was getting before, and that it would be paying out $5 billion less over the next five years than it would be paying under the old formula. In respect of Bill C-97, another Tory Member said that it was essential to underline and clarify the effect of the $5.7 billion cut-back in transfer payments to the provinces. It is notable in those two statements that the amounts are quite comparable to what will happen in terms of cuts over the next five years as a result of this piece of legislation.
Also the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) indicated that we could often escape facts and play games with the truth, but that there was a bottom line, and the bottom line was that once the Bill was passed the Governments charged with the responsibility of providing medical services and postsecondary education would have less money and very little capacity to tax their citizens and more ways to raise more revenue.
As well, the Hon. Member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), with typical eloquence, said at that time that it was a deplorable piece of legislation because the principle of it was one of betrayal. He indicated that the Bill betrayed the provinces of Canada, the provincial Governments of Canada, universities and post-secondary institutions, and young people. He also indicated that it illustrated rank hypocrisy in the actions of the Government. Of course the eloquence of those statements, as indicated by the Hon. Member for St. John's West, was exceeded only by their hypocrisy.
During the 1984 election campaign, the Progressive Conservative Party indicated in respect of transfer payments that it was committed to maintaining the current federal financial commitment according to the formula set out in the 1977 agreement. That Party also indicated that it believed that financing of post-secondary education was an important priority for both levels of Government. There is no obscuring the fact that what we have here, no matter what kind of phraseology is used or what are the attempts at obfuscation, is a Bill which proposes to cut in an essentially unilateral fashion the level of transfer payments to the provinces for health and post-secondary education.
We have heard repeatedly that there has been a great deal of consultation. Most provincial Premiers would consider that the consultation was remarkably unilateral. The Government said that it had an offer they could not refuse. Of course they could not. Therefore, we have a charade of consultation which involved no consultation at all. In all the discussion about the extent of consultation, it should be noted that some of the key players in respect of post-secondary education-student organizations, organizations representing the professoriate and university presidents, and scientific societies-were not consulted, as far as we are aware, on the impact of these changes in the transfer payments, just as they were not
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
consulted in respect of such things as the funds allocated to granting agencies. The Government has tried to claim that they were increased when in fact between now and 1990 the granting councils will have a level of funding which is not very different from what they receive at present, when one takes into account the rate of inflation. There was little consultation.
What is really disturbing is that the Government, in presenting the Bill, emphasized that it was part of the program of fiscal restraint which was somehow in support of a strategy for economic renewal. Of course the approach of the Government to economic renewal has consistently been one of cutting the deficit no matter what the cost. The description of the strategy for economic renewal at least drew attention to the tremendous importance of technology and of research and development to the future growth of the country. However, after reading over the strategy for economic renewal several times, it is curious to note that although the Government talked much about training, very little was said about the need for an enhanced university and college community. Very little was said about the necessity of having a highly educated as opposed to highly trained workforce if this strategy for economic renewal was to work.
The fact is that the unversity and college community can best be described as being in dire straits. This is not new. Although the Government has not deliberately engaged in the process of consultation, most Canadians who read newspapers are at least aware that there has been considerable focus, especially in the last three years or four years, on the plight of universities. I would just say parenthetically, as it occurs to me, that one of the Ministers who was poorly consulted on the changes which the Bill will enact in the level of funding for universities was the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard). He was certainly passed over in considering what proper steps should be taken to find ways to improve the financial situation of universities.
We have had the Wright report, the A1 Johnson report, and the Bovey report in Ontario. We have also had the Nova Scotia Commission on post-secondary education and the Breau report. Even the Macdonald report addressed the concerns of those of us who are conscious about the importance of postsecondary education. All those reports brought the problems to our attention, and the problems are serious ones.
The university system is in a state of terrible deterioration. The New Democratic Party sponsored a youth task force which travelled across the country. During the course of its hearings we found that quite awful conditions existed in our universities and colleges. Previously I cited the fact that in Simon Fraser University, for example, bulbs were being removed from reading areas. We talked about books which were being burned because there was inadequate space in the libraries. We talked about how one science department at the same university had been in temporary quarters, literally shacks, for more than 15 years. At the University of Toronto we were told that some 120 buildings had been declared fire-traps. At Dalhousie University we were told that assignments

April 28, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
were not given in some courses because it was too expensive to provide the necessary printed material. On and on it goes. We heard stories about how the physical plants at universities were deteriorating. There are myriad stories about archaic laboratory equipment, microscopes without lenses, and chemicals which were not available for conducting laboratory experiments and exercises.
Apart from the issue of the deteriorating state of the physical plant and equipment in the universities, in these many reports published recently we have recommendations to meet the financial exigencies of the universities that all too often lead to recommendations that would restrict further accessibility to universities. Several universities, for example, the University of Toronto and the University of Waterloo, have increased the requirements for entry. I am sure I do not have to indicate to you, Sir, that as soon as these kinds of restrictions are imposed on admissibility to universities, both in standards for admission and in increased tuition cost, as has so often been recommended, we will be moving back to an era in which accessibility is limited to the sons and daughters of the wealthy who can afford it.
In the absence of adequate means by which we can support students in their studies, in the absence of adequate grant programs in the face of increased costs for tuition, fees, books and so on, we have a situation where it is not going to be unusual, indeed at present it is not unusual, to find students who at the end of their university or college careers are ending up having to repay a debt that may amount to almost $40,000. That is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker.
There is not only the issue of the social justice of accessibility to ensure that all young people will have adequate opportunity, there is also the issue that the Government should understand, namely, if it intends to pursue the kind of future economic development its economic strategy contemplates then it should be conscious of the need not to cut transfer payments to the provinces. The Government should be doing what should have been done a long time ago. It should be working on an arrangement with the provinces by which colleges and universities would be ensured of adequate levels of funding, making it possible for young people to attend colleges and universities even if their parents are not endowed with particular wealth.
I said earlier that the Government persists in stating that this Bill does not represent a cut over the next five years in financing post-secondary education. I said also that Members opposite were engaged in debate when the previous Government introduced Bill C-97 and Bill C-12 which had similar effects. I cite that to emphasize that it is not just this Government that has failed to meet its responsibilities to meet the needs of post-secondary education, but that there has been a general pattern at the federal level of diminishing levels of financing for post-secondary education.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that up until 1977 the cost of post-secondary education and health was cost shared with the provinces on a 50-50 basis. Since that time, the federal share has dropped from 48 per cent to 41 per cent. With the enactment of this legislation, the level of the federal share on a percentage basis will decrease further so that it is only 36 per cent.
Let me point out that if we look at the annual increases in over-all provincial post-secondary education spending from 1977-78 to 1984-85, we will find that the rate of increase has just barely kept pace with the inflation rate. That at first appearances would seem to suggest that post-secondary education funding has not done too badly, but the costs for post-secondary education have increased at a rate far in excess of the Consumer Price Index, which is the basis for comparison that I cited. That the universities and colleges of this land are in horrible shape is easily explainable on the basis of decreased levels of funding and a lack of commitment on the part of the federal Government, and of the provinces, I must say in some measure, to begin to address the problem in a fashion that would lead to the kind of solution we must have.
We need to produce a strong university system, and not one, as has in recent weeks been so often described, that is becoming third rate. When the very best university in our country is measured, not against all of the universities in the world but only those universities outside of the United States, and it rates seventeenth, then surely we have a serious problem. When the very best university has to close its architectural school, that further dramatizes the horrible state in which we are and the much worse state we will be in if we do not begin to address the problem.
We cannot have a technological future, a future based on manufacturing, something that goes beyond our natural resources as a means for economic growth, if we do not declare some kind of commitment to ensure that universities are enhanced rather than weakened, not only as educational institutions but as research institutions.
In closing, I can do no better than to read the following question: The Minister is prepared to cut spending in two very important areas. He is prepared to risk major cutbacks in medical care and post-secondary education. Rather than rush into this on a unilateral basis, force spending cuts and service cuts on the provinces, would the Minister consider entering into two or three national conferences on health and postsecondary education? We can then set out the national objectives of the various levels of Government in these two important areas before we cut spending, before we cause hospital closures and cutbacks in postsecondary education. That question was posed by the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson). It was a reasonable question. His premise was excellent and it is a premise that I recommend to him.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. Debate. The Hon. Member for Sudbury.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask a question.
April 28, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: If there is unanimous consent, the Hon. Member may ask a question. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, what is the real impact on the universities? What will they be forced to do by this reduction in the amount of money coming in during the next five years?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the solutions have been many, as I indicated during the course of my speech. In some instances the cost of tuition is being generally raised at the provincial level. There have been numerous recommendations that tuition costs be further raised so that students pay a larger share. At every university equipment purchases are being forgone. At the University of Windsor, for example, the budgetary requirement for new equipment for 1986-87 is around $1 million. Under present circumstances, the University can allot only $50,000. We are talking about serious deficiencies, as I mentioned earlier, such as the inability to purchase such equipment as microscopes. While microscopes are lacking lenses, spectrophotometers are being used which are upwards of 20 years old. These are hands on, manual, pieces of equipment at a time when devices are highly computerized. Repairs are not being done. For example, at the University of Toronto it was discovered that some buildings were condemnable as fire hazards. Professorial salaries are not increasing commensurate with increases in other provinces. As a consequence, many university teachers, particularly in the sciences, are now going south of the border to find more adequate salaries and well-funded research. In one university, the University of British Columbia, services to handicapped students were cut. Student assistants are now finding themselves with increasing workloads at very low salaries. Many professors and instructors in the colleges have greatly increased workloads imposed upon them to the detriment of the quality of teaching. In research institutions, of course, professors are burdened with increased teaching duties and, as a result, research suffers.
There are any number of responses which the post-secondary educational community has employed to meet financial exigencies. All of them are bad and all of them constitute a threat to the quality of education and, I say, a serious threat to Canada's economic future. One of the important facts to take note of is that whereas in the U.S. and Japan the participation rate in post-secondary education is around 40 per cent, in Canada it is about 30 per cent. When you add that to the fact that our research effort is less than half of what it is in those two countries against which we must compete, that dramatizes the need, indeed the urgency, for the Government to ensure adequate financing. There has to be consultation with the provinces to ensure that they allocate funds on an assured basis to ensure that universities do not retrench and are capable of providing the kind of education needed and an adequate level
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
of research funding. Those are the things which the Government is quite specifically not doing.


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


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, in the early part of the Hon. Member's speech he talked about hypocrisy. He quoted various people, including me. As a new Member of Parliament, he should be a little careful in talking about hypocrisy. There is rhetorical hypocrisy and active hypocrisy. I suggest to him that when members of his Party threw a Government out of office because of a Budget which was described as the fairest to poor people in this country in the 1970s, they moved from rhetorical hypocrisy to active hypocrisy. They went against everything they supposedly stood for.
I would also remind him that when speeches are made, they are made at a particular period in history. This Party, myself included, consistently talked to members of the previous Government as well as members of his Party about the difficulty this country would be in if we continued to borrow money that way. At the time that speech was made the then Minister of Finance had brought down Budgets where parliamentarians were misinformed about the reality of that spending. It turned out to be a great deal worse. More money, billions of dollars more, had to be borrowed than Members were aware of. I was elected to this place almost seven years ago. At that time 17 cents out of the tax dollar went to pay interest on our debt. Today it is 36 cents. At one point we had 83 cents to spend on programs and today we have 64 cents.
If the Hon. Member wants to avoid hypocrisy, I would like him to stand in his place and tell us whether he is one of those in his Party who believes you can just go on borrowing for ever and ever and never have to pay the piper. Or would he agree that this Government is taking sound, fundamental steps when it attempts to reduce our borrowing requirements, while at the same time recognizing the importance of health care and education by increasing the amounts allocated for those areas at the rate of inflation less 2 per cent? Have we not signalled our priorities very, very clearly by doing this at a time when most other programs are being cut? Does he not think the Government is on the right tack by showing fiscal responsibility while at the same time identifying this kind of priority, or is he like other members of his Party who are irresponsible and who would just borrow forever until we get to the day where we have less than 50 cents of a tax dollar to spend on programs? Which is it?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the context in which I quoted the Hon. Member was that he and other members of his Party say they are not making any cuts. I will read it again:
We can often escape facts, we can play games with the truth, but there is a bottom line and that bottom line is that once this bill is passed, the governments which are charged with the responsibility of providing medical services and postsecondary education will have less money and will have very little capacity to tax their citizens in more ways to raise more revenue.

April 28, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
It is as applicable now as it was then. The EPF payments are being cut, no matter how you describe it.
As to the deficit, there is one sensible way to cut it in the long term, that is, to foster economic growth. That is something the Government said in its description of its economic strategy. What it has failed to recognize is that that strategy will fail if our universities and colleges fail and our people are not educated enough to pursue that strategy. That is a simple premise, one that even the Hon. Member can understand even if his memory is faulty.


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


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make some remarks on Bill C-96. I would like to address an issue which has recently begun to receive a great deal of public attention. Much has been said about federal transfer payments to provinces. Unfortunately, a great deal of misinformation has been spread. I hope to explain to you a little bit about the history of these transfers, where we are today, and the action we as a Government have taken.
The federal Government, through a variety of means, makes significant cash and tax transfers to provincial and territorial Governments. The two most significant are equalization payments and the established programs financing or EPF transfers. The fundamental goal of the equalization program is to ensure that all provinces have the financial capacity to provide their residents with reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. The principle that all citizens in every province are entitled to an adequate level of services is enshrined in the Constitution. These payments raise to a prescribed level the per capita revenue raising capacity of the lower-income provinces.
Six provincial Governments, Newfoundland, P.E.I., New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Quebec and Manitoba, received these payments on an unconditional basis. They may use the funds either to raise their level of public services or to lower the level of taxation, or some combination of the two. The level of equalization transfers are calculated according to a predetermined formula that was reviewed most recently in 1982. The federal Government has been contributing to the financing of provincial hospital insurance programs since 1958. Federal transfers to provincial Governments in respect of postsecondary education were introduced in 1967. The jointly financed medicare insurance program was established in 1968, and until 1977 federal transfer payments for these programs were made under cost sharing arrangements.
Federal transfers were based on the provincial government expenditures on a medical care and hospital care insurance, and on the operating costs of post-secondary education institutions. The federal share was roughly 50 per cent overall, although the precise share varied from province to province. In 1977 the arrangements were changed so that the federal contribution was no longer determined by provincial
programmed expenditures. Rather, it was determined by federal per capita transfers in a base year, 1975-76, escalated by the rate of growth of per capita Gross National Product and each province's population.
Thus the current arrangements involved a block fund which provinces allocate to their health and post-secondary education programs. In this fiscal year the federal Government transfers $508 per capita, plus a further $43 per capita to help finance extended health care services. In the May, 1985 Budget, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), indicated that under these two programs the federal Governement will be transferring $14.2 billion in cash, and an additional $6.3 billion in tax transfers. These will be transferred, of course, to the provincial and territorial Governments. That amounts to $20.5 billion in transfers through these two programs alone. Mr. Speaker, I know I do not have to remind you of the significance of that level of over $20 billion. It is approximately 18 to 19 per cent of the total expenditures of this Government. So we are dealing with a very significant portion of our expenditures.
The Minister proposed in his Budget to limit the rate of growth of these transfers to provincial Governments as part of the over-all restraint package of the Government. The intention of this limit on the rate of growth is to effect savings amounting to about $2 billion in 1990-91.
Let me make it clear, Mr. Speaker, this is not a cut-back on federal transfers to the provinces. Even when this limited growth rate has been put in place on April 1, federal transfers will, over the next five years, increase by some $25 billion. In other words, they will grow from the current level of $65 billion to $90 billion.
It should also be noted that these increases are occurring at a time of severe fiscal restraint on the part of the federal Government. This Government has undertaken a vigorous and at times painful deficit reduction program, and has asked all Canadians to participate in this national effort to restore financial sanity to our nation's finances. Our spending program, that is excluding the debt and transfers, has been limited to a 2.9 per cent growth rate this year. These transfers to provinces, however, will continue to increase at a faster rate than the rate of growth of federal program expenditures, the projected rate of inflation, or the growth rate of the economy. In other words, Mr. Speaker, that 2.9 or roughly 3 per cent over-all growth compares to 5 per cent, roughly, for these transfer payments. That level of 5 per cent is some two-thirds or 66 per cent higher than it is in the other areas of Government. I think that gives us some idea of the sincerity and seriousness with which we treat those two major programs.
I do not believe that the restrained rate of interest increase that we are proposing is inappropriate given the fiscal situation we face. There has been no questioning of the value of health care or post-secondary education. The importance of these goes without saying. I believe the continued high rate of growth of federal transfers reflects that importance.
April 28, 1986

Let me sum up with some remarks today by saying that the fundamental principle of these transfers it is the importance of established programs financing, which lies in the provision of a firm and stable financial foundation on which we have built a system of health care and post-secondary education that is second to none in the world. This is true of its quality and its accessibility to all Canadians in every province. Truly the most important issue to all Canadians is that this firm and stable financial foundation be maintained in order to ensure the high quality of our health care and post-secondary education. The changes that are being made to federal transfers to provinces, and the innumerable measures encompassed in the May Budget, clearly indicate that this Government is strongly committed to maintaining such a stable financial foundation.
If we as a Government do not deal seriously and effectively with our current fiscal problems, if we do not begin to bring government expenditures into line with government revenues, if we do not begin to control the rate of growth of the federal deficit and debt in the near future, we may be faced with even more difficult and more extreme restraint measures.
In my own riding of Don Valley East most often I hear positive comments relating to our most recent Budget brought down by the Finance Minister (Mr. Wilson) in which the cuts were very substantial. However, many people, knowing the gravity of the situation in this country, wanted more cuts to be made, wanted us to get on a more stable financial track more quickly. I was very pleased when, right on the heels of the Budget, the Nielsen task force results were announced. Some 900 to 1,000 major programs and projects within Government had received a very thorough scrutiny over the period of a year. Now there are literally hundreds of options and recommendations that must be dealt with by the respective committees, and I am confident that the fresh look given by a number of men and women from the private sector is going to give the various committees and ministries a great amount of ammunition to work with in terms of streamlining operations and effecting savings. All that will work towards a more frugal use of the taxpayers' dollars.
When we as a Party were elected to government in September, 1984, time and time again what I certainly heard on the streets of my own riding was that people wanted change, they wanted that irresponsible spending to stop. They realized what level it was reaching. I can highlight a few figures here in a moment. It had just been totally out of control for a ten-year period.
In 1970-71, the first year of a significant deficit, it was $500 million. That sounds like peanuts today. It took the former Government only three years to go over the billion-dollar mark in 1972-73. It took it three more years to go over the $5 billion annual deficit in 1975-76. In two short years it zoomed through the $10 billion level in 1977-78. Six years later, in 1982-83, it broke the ceiling and went through the $20 billion level. In 1982-83, it was at $23 billion. One year later, it roared through the $30 billion level. Notwithstanding the fact that we were going through some rough economic times,
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
clearly spending was absolutely and totally out of the control of that previous Government which now sits as the Official Opposition. Who is left to deal in a frugal way with taxpayers' dollars? Who is left to get things under control gradually so that we do not pass that albatross of increasing debt down to future generations? We are in the situation now where a tremendous amount of our tax revenues goes just to service the cost of that debt. In terms of expenditures, a large chunk of our current tax revenues go just to service the debt. Our expenditures are a little over $100 billion, and 23.5 per cent goes toward that interest payment. Statutory programs account for 44 per cent of our total expenditures and nonstatutory expenses account for some 32.5 per cent. Those statutory programs, which account for 44 per cent of our expenditures, will increase by 5 per cent in 1986-87 and drop down to 2 per cent in 1987-88. Non-statutory spending, which accounts for 32.5 per cent, will increase by 0.7 per cent in 1986-87 and will drop to 0.5 per cent the following year.
Since the November 1984 Economic Statement, the Minister of Finance has had ample consultation with the respective provincial Ministers about transfer payments. There have been four meetings since the May 1985 Budget. As a result of those meetings, the Government decided to increase the payment by approximately 5 per cent. When one takes into account the inflation rate of approximately 4 per cent, the increase in this category is 25 per cent more than inflation. The Opposition would have us increase this payment by 7 per cent, which would be 75 per cent over the inflation rate.
The fact is that we must establish financial control in Canada. I took the opportunity to record the track record of the previous Government, beginning in the early 1970s. At that time, our dollar was worth $1.05 compared to the U.S. dollar. I do not think it is any coincidence that there is a definite correlation between the financial instability that set into this country and our falling dollar which has dropped to approximately 72 cents American. It is largely due to the irresponsibility of the Official Opposition when it was in government.
The Opposition continues to carp and criticize. I do not know where it thinks money comes from, but someone must be accountable for the restoration of financial stability in this country. That responsibility has fallen on our Government, and I want to commend the Minister of Finance, the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) for having the intestinal fortitude to deal with very difficult problems.
No constituency is left unaffected when there are cut-backs in spending. It is no pleasure to take these steps, but we were left with the financial mess which I have described. We intend to take control of that financial situation in a meaningful and sensitive way.
For example, our spending on statutory programs will be 25 per cent more than the rate of inflation, which is almost double

April 28, 1986
Federal- Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
that which is being spent in other areas of government expenditures.
The federal Government is not in any way trying to undermine the federal-provincial transfer system. Rather, we are making what amounts to minor changes in order to ensure the fiscal integrity of the entire Canadian economy. Our health and post-secondary education systems have served Canadians well in the past and will continue to serve them well over the next five years and beyond, if we get our total financial house in order and work toward balancing the Budget. That may take some time because the Budget has been so poorly managed in the past decade.
I have a private Members' motion which is similar to the Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Bill in the United States which proposes a balanced Budget for the United States by 1990-91. Frankly, I do not believe it speaks well for politicians or the political process that legislation is required to compel a Government to have a balanced Budget, but that is what is taking place. The United States began its deficit some 30 years ago, while ours began some 12 years ago.
Americans are much more aware of their serious deficit situation. According to a poll, which I have not seen, Canadians rank the problem of the deficit as thirty-sixth on their list of major concerns. Their first concern is unemployment. That is quite natural, although our Government has done much to correct that problem. Their second concern is feeding the hungry of the world, and the third is seeking peace. These are laudable and commendable objectives for us all.
Although I believe the awareness of the fiscal situation in this country is increasing, we must increase that awareness even further. We are spending the taxpayers' money and they expect us to use it in a more frugal way so that we can eventually see a surplus in this country. For those who have forgotten, a surplus exists when revenue exceeds expenditures. We have not experienced a surplus in this country for some time, but with the approach that the Government is taking, I think we will have that surplus in the not too distant future. We will achieve that goal with the co-operation of the Canadian people, despite the wall that has been put in place.


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


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments and also a question for the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell).
First of all, I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that he can't eat his cake and have it. In the first part of his speech, he criticized the Liberals for their poor financial management and their completely irresponsible spending habits. I think it is strange he should be saying this at a time we are considering Bill C-96.
I may remind him that in 1982, when the fiscal arrangements legislation was adopted for five years, 1982-87, the
Progressive Conservatives objected to any change in the formula that would result in a reduction in transfer payments. The Hon. Member for Don Valley East cannot turn around and blame everything on poor financial management, when his own party took the opposite stand during the debate on the 1982-87 fiscal arrangements. Even the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), in speaking to the legislation at the time, said that this was not co-operative federalism, and I would like to quote him directly:-

"That is not co-operative federalism. That is predatory federalism and will not and cannot work in this country."

Mr. Speaker, I would say that the legislation being considered in that particular debate had far less impact Financially on the provinces than the legislation before the House today. I also fail to understand why the Hon. Member wants to have it both ways.
My question concerns the quality of health services. How can the Hon. Member, whose party voted with the Liberal Government at the time against the introduction of user fees, whose party objected to this and even voted in favour of the Government, irrespective of its political stripe, cutting transfer payments to the provinces that allowed extra billing, as the phrase goes, how can he make the kind of speech he just made today? And I would like to ask him this: Can his province, the Province of Ontario, afford to lose $3 billion without this having an effect on its deficit? Because that is what Bill C-96 means. The Province of Ontario stands to lose $3 billion between now and the end of this decade.
Furthermore, since the Premier of Ontario has indicated that this kind of legislation would make Ontario cut 75,000 hospital beds, does the Hon. Member believe that the Province of Ontario can afford to do so, and if not, who is going to pay the bill for those hospital beds? Ontario taxpayers, because the federal Government has transferred its deficit to Ontario?


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to some of the remarks of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). I honestly think he knows better.


Jacques Guilbault: Nothing personal. Answer the question.


Bill Attewell: He has had a very successful term in a position with the Quebec Government. He was a CEO of a large financial institution in Quebec. He more than all people is aware of what has to happen whether one is with an organization or in government, one has to work toward eventually balancing the Budget. This country cannot go on for another ten-year period as we have for the last decade.
April 28, 1986

We keep hearing the criticism that we argue that it is not a cut-back. The federal Government will be transferring some $90 billion over the next five years to the provinces. That is a $25 billion gain from the present $65 billion level. I call that a magnificent gain. That is an average of some 5 per cent throughout the period.
I will come back to the points I was making a few moments ago in case they were not observed. Canadians expect that in all of our programs we should get our house in order collectively. For instance, I am not aware of the exact way that many universities are run, but the Hon. Member will know that from time to time corporations have to stop and examine their internal efficiency, how the money is spent, whether in travelling expenses, entertainment, or perhaps in too many departments or chief executive officers. Perhaps the pay scales are too high. There are 101 areas one can look at. I would hope the Hon. Member would agree that some universities and postsecondary institutions might be able to find some savings and some inefficiencies might be identified. However, tough decisions are being made day in and day out. None of us were pleased to hear recently that the School of Architecture at the University of Toronto may not have sufficient funding to continue. That school has existed for something like 100 years. But what has brought these tough decisions to the fore is the track record of the Official Opposition for a ten-year period.


Mr. Allmand:: Baloney. Nobody believes that.


Bill Attewell: Had we taken over government with a surplus, we would not even think about the measures we are now discussing in Bill C-96. It is that simple.


William Warren Allmand: Who would believe that.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: They wouldn't believe you for two minutes.


Bill Attewell: The Hon. Member asks who would believe it. Thousands of Canadians believe it. The Liberal Government has led us down the garden path. So we have had to make tough decisions. But Canadians expect us to face these problems in a sensitive way, whether it be hospital care or post-secondary education, and not to turn our back on them. We intend to face these problems to the best of our ability.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I should have liked the Hon. Member for Don Valley East (Mr. Attewell) to answer my question which was quite clear. Would the Hon. Member try again and tell me how it was that in 1981-82, his party which at that time was aware of the financial situation, objected so strongly to changes in the formula, especially the guarantee of tax revenues which was a very complicated formula based on a flow of statistics that was practically beyond any control? Why did his party object at that time? Payments should have been extended and, today, they have changed their attitude. Has it seen the light on the road to Damascus but I would rather like to know whether Ontario can be deprived of 75 hospital beds
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
and lose $3 billion while making such services available to its citizens? Does he believe it is possible?


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Hon. Member, what we had during the term of the former Government was a moving target. We were not able to get accurate financial estimates from that Government.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Oh, oh!


Bill Attewell: Budgets were being changed hours before they were presented in the House. Estimates were continually rising. All Hon. Members will remember the period when the Budget started with a low $20 billion and after the fourth estimate we were zeroing in on something like $30 billion. How can we do intelligent financial planning with that sort of moving target?
I must say it is a pleasant change to move into a record we can point to with pride. Our Minister of Finance pointed to a deficit months and months ago and said that he would be targetting at the $34.8 billion level, and we are going to come in at exactly that level. The Minister of Finance has forecast a deficit of under $30 billion next year, and we hope to hit that level as well. That is a far different record from the record of the previous Government, now the Official Opposition. The Hon. Member knows from working in business that one's decisions are only as good as the financial base and data one has. We now, I believe, have sound data and that is why we can make some reasonably sound predictions.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, before commencing my remarks this afternoon, I would like to say that it seems to me, after having sat through three interventions by Conservative back-bench Members of Parliament- and I qualify "back-bench"-that we are in danger of having this debate deteriorate rapidly into a variation of the Marie Antoinette theme of "let them eat cake". Clearly the Conservative Party has a totally different concept of the cornerstone of Confederation.
Before getting into the specifics of the debate, I would like perhaps, for the benefit of us all in the Chamber, to speak about the definition by a former Prime Minister of Great Britain. A century or so ago Prime Minister Disraeli defined Conservatism as "organized hypocrisy".


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Hear, hear! It is still true today.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Clearly not much has changed in the intervening years. Perhaps I might add to that comment made a century and a half ago by indicating that Conservatives today represent disorganized hypocrisy. I say that in all sincerity. The Canadian public has come to the conclusion that politicians cannot be trusted in what they say. There now exists in Canada, I believe, unheard of heights of cynicism with respect to politics. Why is it that the level of cynicism toward the political process and politicians has reached such new heights? I put forward for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, that

April 28, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Canadians can no longer depend upon the Government they elect to follow through on the promises made during the election campaign. I point out that the Conservative Party has been guilty time and time again since September, 1984 of taking the position that it really does not matter what the election campaign was fought on or what promises were made. Once having been elected they say: "Damn the consequences. We will do whatever we feel needs to be done. The legislative program does not have to reflect the promises made during the election campaign of 1984".
There is one other reason for this level of cynicism. I voice this on behalf of all of my colleagues on this side of the House. I cannot recall in the years I have been in this House of Commons a major debate on a law that is going to have major implications on the ability of provincial Governments to deliver post-secondary education and a level of health care which we have come to expect, being led off by a Parliamentary Secretary. We have the largest majority Government in the history of Canada. There are some 211 Members of Parliament representing the Conservative Government. We have the largest Cabinet since Confederation with 39 members. Not one cabinet Minister took the time to lead off this debate on behalf of the Government. It is no wonder that the Canadian public feels such a high level of cynicism about the political process.
I would like to remind Members opposite of some of the promises made in the 1984 election campaign.

Remember the promises made in Sherbrooke on June 26, 1984. Listen carefully Mr. Speaker, the following commitment: To honour the federal obligation to finance provincial health care within the financial structure of the established programs and provide supplementary funds to the Provinces on an equal basis.

That was one of the major promises made by the Conservative Party in the election campaign of 1984. I will repeat it in English for the benefit of the listening audience. On July 26 it was promised that the Conservatives would respect the federal obligation to finance health care in the provinces through EPF and to provide additional funds to the provinces on a parity basis. They also promised to create or enhance those programs which could be identified as a national need.
I would now like to take Conservative Members of Parliament on a bit of a trip down memory lane. I think it is worthwhile to go over some of the comments made by Conservative Members when they sat on this side of the House prior to 1984 and when we introduced the legislation known as six and five. Several of my colleagues have already quoted the words of those Members delivered at that time. They are worth repeating. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), who is now in the House and who is Chairman of the Finance Committee, said the following:
These particular programs, health care and education, are within the provincial sphere. To wind up saying somehow, somewhere along the line, in order to solve an inflation problem you can go ahead and rip apart an agreement without any justification whatsoever, and then rip apart that agreement a year and a half after you start your alleged six and five program to solve an inflation problem you already declare has been solved, is such balderdash to come from a Minister that the Minister himself should resign for even saying it-
This is a breach of contract, a breach of agreement. It is even more than that: it is a breach of an understanding of where we are going in the country.
I must admit that that is a true statement even today. It is fundamental to what the established programs financing arrangements are all about. The provinces of the country determine five-year plans based on their faith that the federal Government will not break its end of the contract. Provincial Ministers of Finance must have this agreement to forecast properly fund allocation for post-secondary education and the health care system. They must have the fundamental understanding, in agreement with the federal Government, that nothing will change within the timeframe of the contract upon which they have entered into.
How can we square that need by the provincial Governments with the law which is being proposed here today? Much has been made by Conservative back-benchers about the fact that the Government forecast that there would be changes made to the established programs financing arrangements. That is simply not true. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) indicated in his Economic Statement in November of 1984 that there would be a review of the arrangements made under EPF. That came as no surprise since it is understood by everyone in the House that this agreement has to be renegotiated every five years. It came as a surprise to me, and to many of my colleagues in opposition, that the Government accelerated the review of EPF. In its May 1985 Budget, under projected savings in terms of EPF, there was nothing mentioned about fiscal year 1986-87. Thus every provincial Treasurer must have assumed, as my colleagues and I assumed, that there were no planned changes to that federal-provincial agreement for 1986-87. However, we were all deceived.
I would now like to review some of the comments made by members of the Government who sit on the front benches with respect to the six and five program which was introduced by the Liberal Government. The present Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), the Hon. Member for Kingston and the Islands, said:
I would say that the consequences may not readily be discernible to the federal Government, but to the thousands of young Canadians in post-secondary institutions of this country and to the hundreds of people who staff our community colleges and universities, the consequences are very clear. In fact, they are frightening.
This illustrates the type of cynicism about which I spoke at the beginning of my remarks. It is the type of commentary which fuels the level of cynicism held by the Canadian public toward politicians and the political process.
It has been reported that the Minister of Finance has justified the cuts by saying that the impact of a runaway federal deficit was far greater than the problem of shifting the
April 28, 1986

deficit to the provincial level. Thus he admits that he is proceeding with a shell game. The Government is simply transferring the burden of deficit reduction from the backs of federal taxpayers on to the backs of provincial taxpayers who, in turn, will probably attempt to pass the burden on to the backs of taxpayers at the municipal level. Have Hon. Members given any thought to the consequences of reducing the level of transfer payments to the provinces? Others of my caucus colleagues will speak about the cuts and the effects they will have on post-secondary education. 1 will focus on a matter with which I have more familiarity, that is, the delivery of health care.
I wish to remind Members opposite that in the years 1977 to 1984-at least until we introduced the six and five program- the federal Government increased transfer payments for health care and education beyond the level of inflation. This was done despite the fact that in those years in which the economy was growing there was still a detrimental effect being felt by persons who delivered health care at the local level. I say that because what happens, even under an ideal situation in which transfer payments are increasing at a greater rate than inflation, is that the provinces choose not to pass those increases on to those who deliver post-secondary education and health care. I remind Hon. Members that the provinces at that time were ruled by Conservative Governments-perhaps that is why the situation was so widely abused. However, I will leave that for others to question me on. It seems to me that all that occurred then was that the consolidated revenues of the provincial Treasuries swelled. The increases in transfers were not pased on to the persons who delivered medicare and to the people who delivered post-secondary education in the provinces.
As a result, one does not have to go any further than to discuss with hospital administrators what the impact of the cut-backs in transfers was on the delivery of health care. I have to admit that the administrators have done a very reasonable job in the last five to six years, given the propensity of the provinces to decrease transfers for the delivery of those programs at the local level. I would venture to say that the difficulty which hospital administrators are faced with today is the following. After six years of cut-backs, almost all of the fat which was in the system in the latter part of the seventies has been removed. I know that many Members of Parliament sitting around me sat on hospital boards before their entrance into federal politics at a time in which these cut-backs were occurring. I think we all recognize the cut-backs that had to occur when administrators and hospital boards were faced with cut-backs in provincial transfers to the local level. Having now reached the stage in 1985-86 at which there is no longer any fat to be removed from the system, what do Conservative Members think will happen to the level of health care services when transfer payments will be cut back over the next five to six years to the tune of $6 billion?
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
Let me give the House a specific example of what will happen as a result of today's legislation in the Province of Ontario. This is where the hypocrisy and cynicism begins. Under this legislation, the Government has now proposed that in fiscal year 1986-87, there will be a decrease in the transfers to the Province of Ontario of some $114 million in this year alone. Yet in May of 1985 when the Minister of Finance tabled a Budget, he showed clearly that for the year 1986-87, the Government planned to save no money. However, the Government broke its word.
Do you know why the Government broke its word, Mr. Speaker? I submit it broke its word because something happened between the time the Minister gave the Economic Statement of November 1984 and the time he tabled the February 1986 Budget. The major occurrence that made the Government require new sources of revenue was the bail-out of the two western banks. I submit that this was the major reason the Government decided to accelerate the decrease in transfers to the provinces.
Simply put, if Conservative Members were going to live up to their word about how they were going to be such great masters of deficit control, they would have to find new sources of revenue. They simply said: "It does not really matter what we promised in the November Economic Statement or the election campaign of the summer of 1984. It does not matter because the Canadian public will forget about that by the time the 1988 election rolls around". That is why they introduced an accelerated reduction in the federal transfers for postsecondary education and medicare.
I would like to have asked Hon. Members opposite where they think the provinces are going to find the money required to make up for the decrease in transfers to their Treasuries. It does not take a genius to come to the conclusion that a provincial Treasurer will have three options. First, he could increase provincial taxes to cover the shortfall. Second, he could reduce the level of services available under established programs financing. Probably the more realistic choice, the third choice, is a hybrid one. He could increase taxes somewhat and decrease services at the same time. Let us make sure that the Canadian people understand why there will be a decrease in services. Let us not enter this debate blindly. Any Government at a provincial level will have to make one of those three choices.
I would like to read into the public record the words spoken by the Premier of Ontario when he learned of the treacherous manner in which the Government plans to reduce the size of the federal deficit. Mr. David Peterson had this to say, as reported by Le Devoir of November 29, 1985:
"This reduction in the funds provided the provinces will translate into a reduction in services. There will be fewer hospital beds-
The Gazette of November 29, 1985, quoted him as saying the following:

April 28, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
"You don't call it a cut. You could call it a breach of faith. You could call it breaking a promise" ... Mulroney shot back: 'It's not a broken promise. It's a responsible attempt to deal with a major Canadian problem' (the deficit)-


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: That's right. Your deficit.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Where were the Conservatives during the election campaign of the summer of 1984? Do not tell me that they said that the secretive practices of the Liberal Government prevented them from having full knowledge of the full extent of the federal deficit. They could not campaign on that. During the election campaign of the summer of 1984, we campaigned on the idea that the deficit should never be reduced on the backs of the poor, the oppressed, the sick, or the unemployed. That is exactly what this Government has decided to do. Conservative Members at least ought to admit-


Mr. Stewart:: Do you want a larger deficit?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: There's one guy talking about larger deficits.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: They should admit that the deficit reduction program proposed by the federal Government will be riding on the backs of those people to whom I referred. That is why people treat them with such cynicism. They cannot stand it.
I welcome any interventions made by Hon. Members opposite. It is an incredible performance when the Minister of Finance along with his Parliamentary Secretary (Mr. Vincent) tables legislation that we all know will break every one of the fundamental promises that were made during the election campaign, and then suddenly washes his hands of it by saying that it is not his fault, the devil made him do it, along with the former Liberal Government's hiding of the actual size of the deficit. Government Members may not realize it now, but that is not cutting well with the Canadian public. Once we see the impact of these cuts, I am going to see my constituents and I am sure every one of them will be asking why Conservative back-benchers sat quietly while the Government was tearing at the fabric of post-secondary education and medicare.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, I have a comment to make and then a question to ask. The Hon. Member spoke about statements that I made during the debate on the six and five issue. That debate dealt with inflation and protection against the costs that were rising at that time very much faster than 6 per cent and 5 per cent. The former Government cut back on payments and transfers to an artificial level of six and five knowing that the recipient provinces would not have sufficient money to cover the inflation in the cost of these very programs. However, that is not the case with this Bill.
This Bill deals with a dramatically different economic situation than that which existed during the six and five debate. We now have a Government that is prepared to, and capable of, creating real growth in the economy. We are saying that instead of allowing education and health care transfers to grow with the growth in the economy, the growth should be restrained to some extent in view of the enormous deficit position.
The Bill allows for complete inflation protection. The restraint in the Bill is only directed at increases in real GNP. If there were no increase in GNP, then there would be no restraint. There is a very dramatic difference, as the Hon. Member should know, between this Bill and the six and five Bill.
Does the Hon. Member believe that we should continue to allow transfers to grow based on the growth of the economy, or does he think, in view of the serious fiscal situation of the federal Government, that we ought to allow the transfers to grow but only on the basis of inflation plus some of the growth in the economy but not all?


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite is an expert at manipulating figures. That is very clear. He was able to manipulate the numbers in the six and five program to come up with one policy position when in opposition, and he now wants to use a different set of numbers to justify a complete reversal of that position taken by the Conservatives during the election campaign of the summer of 1984.
Conservative Members did not promise to limit the growth in transfers to provinces required to maintain the delivery of medicare and post-secondary education services. What the Hon. Member is suggesting is a complete untruth. He has to realize that Conservative Members have broken a promise and that in fact transfer payments will only grow at the level of CPI minus 2 per cent. It will not even keep up with the level of economic growth. For example, the provincial Government of Ontario in 1986-87 will have to find an additional $114 million. Why did the Hon. Member opposite not campaign on that in the summer of 1984 and advocate those kinds of cuts?
This is why I say that people no longer trust politicians. They find too often that they break their word. Before the Hon. Member takes another shot at me, I should like to indicate that, to some extent, we have been guilty of practice along the same vein. However, we paid the price in 1984, and I remind Hon. Members opposite that they will pay the price in 1988.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member will know that this is not 2 per cent less inflation. It is a reduction in the growth in GNP. Inflation is completely covered in the Bill. It is only if the GNP does not grow in excess of 2 per cent. It is the growth in the GNP which is the restraint, not the cover for inflation. The Bill particularly covers the transfers for inflation. The provinces are protected for inflation. Indeed, the provinces get more than inflation.
As the Hon. Member knows, last year our GNP grew by 4.5 per cent or 4.9 per cent. Right now we are doing well; if there were to be no further growth for the balance of the year, the GNP would grow by over 2 per cent. The provinces will get real growth this year in the transfer, plus all the inflation growth.
April 28, 1986

The Bill specifically protects against the damages and ravages of inflation. That is not what the six and five Bill did, and the Hon. Member ought to know it. We perform on our promises. We have performed on every promise we made-


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Oh, oh!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: -and we have more promises to fulfil, but we have our term of office and we will be here for a long time. The Hon. Member ought to understand that.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, let me correct the record. In the heat of the exchange I made a mistake when I talked about the CPI. In effect it relates to the GNP. However, the Hon. Member opposite must surely agree that the net result of the proposed legislation on the floor of the House today is a situation whereby the provinces by 1991-92 will have to come up with the difference.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Oh, no, they will not.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: The Hon. Member can say what he wants, but the Bill will transfer the burden of deficit reduction off the backs of federal taxpayers and on to the backs of provincial taxpayers. That is all it will accomplish. That is the premise at the heart of the Bill, and Hon. Members do not want to discuss it.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member raised the topic of cynicism. Canadians would be less cynical if he rose in the Chamber and really talked about the difference between the two Bills. When the Liberals brought in their six and five program, they were deliberately cutting transfers below the rate of inflation, which indeed would mean a loss to the provinces. Just to maintain services, they would have to pick up the differences. This Bill limits increases to inflation plus approximately 2 per cent. It goes beyond inflation, and educational institutions and hospitals can grow on federal dollars alone. If they are matched by the provinces, they can grow even faster. That is the big difference.
I have in my possession an Auditor General's Report. For the last year of the Hon. Member's Government, going into an election, the debt of the country was increased by 17 per cent to try to bribe voters. That is the root cause of cynicism.
Earlier we had an argument about the difference between Finance Ministers. During the last three years of the term of office of their Minister of Finance, they overestimated revenue and underestimated expenditures for every year, and the deficits were 25 per cent higher than they told us in the Chamber. That is also the root of the cynicism.
When they rise to try to tell Canadians that this Bill is worse than their Bill and the opposite is true, when they rise and support Finance Ministers who do not tell any of us the truth about any kind of fiscal planning, then they are responsible as a political Party and as individual Members for the cynicism out there. During the 1984 election campaign we told people that budgets had to be cut and that we could no longer
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
continue to borrow money. That is why we can stand in the Chamber with pride every time we support a budgetary cut. That is the position in which Conservatives find themselves- no cynicism, but reality.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Mr. Speaker, does the Hon. Member opposite truly have such a short memory? During the summer election campaign of 1984, did we ever hear budget reduction mentioned once by the Conservative Party?


Some Hon. Members:: Yes.


Douglas Cockburn Frith: Did we ever hear those words used by them? No, we did not. They said that universality was a sacred trust not to be tampered with. They never once mentioned to the Canadian public that they had a hidden agenda. They never once mentioned that during the summer campaign. In the Economic Statement of November 1984, did they mention to the provincial Premiers and Treasurers that the payments in 1986-87 would be cut? No, they did not. In the documents tabled with the May 1985 Budget, they showed no savings in transfers between the provinces, yet they double-crossed everybody by introducing legislation in 1986 which will cut to the total tune of $317 million the transfer of savings to the provinces. It does not take a genius to figure out that the provinces will have to make up the difference.


Clément M. Côté: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this Bill and, if
1	may, I will try to set the record straight after listening to the misleading statements just made by the Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith).
Mr. Speaker, the proposed changes to the EPF legislation call for amendments to the 1977 statute on fiscal arrangements between the provinces and the federal Government. Pursuant to this statute, the federal Government is empowered to contribute to provincial post-secondary education and health programs, commonly referred to as EPF or Established Programs Financing.
The main amendment is a simple change to a provision of the existing legislation which sets the rate of increase of EPF transfer payments.
Contrary to what the Hon. Member for Sudbury has just said, this amendment is part and parcel of our strategy aimed at reducing the deficit, as advocated in the May 1985 Budget.
As of April 1, 1986 EPF transfers will continue to increase as is the case now, that is geared to GNP and population figures, the difference being that they will be set at growth less
2	per cent. Therefore it is totally false to pretend that they will be reduced.
In spite of this change, the average rate of growth of cash and tax point federal contributions will be 5 per cent annually during the next five years. A total of over $90 billion will have been allocated to provincial health care and post-secondary

April 28, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
education provincial programs by 1990-91, which is some $25 billion more than during the last five years.
The changes made by the Government to the percentage of increase for EPF transfers were announced in the May 1985 budget. That budget forecast a substantial increase in these transfer payments. However, they were to increase more slowly in accordance with our strategy to reduce the federal deficit. The changes come into effect on April 1, 1986, and will have the following results: an average annual rate of growth forecast at 5 per cent, as I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, and cash and tax transfers of over $90 billion for provincial health care and post-secondary education programs during the next five years, which is about $25 billion more than during the last five years.
As my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) indicated when the consultations with the provincial Finance Ministers came to an end last December-and some people suggest that there were no consultations-the growth of EPF transfers will continue to be linked with the growth in the economy, the per capita GNP and the population in each province, and the increase of the transfer payments will never be lower than the inflation rate.
The changes brought about by this Government will mean a slight slowdown, not a reduction in the growth of provincial transfers, and this is both fair and reasonable.
Mr. Speaker, at this stage I would like to try and answer some questions that were asked by Hon. Members opposite, for instance: Why do you reduce federal support to health and post-secondary education, Mr. Speaker? There is no reduction. We are paying out huge amounts. They have been increased by not insignificant amounts. Especially when compared to expenditures on other federal programs that on average are increasing much more slowly, this reflects the high priority given by this Government to helping the provinces in the areas of health and post-secondary education.
Why should we not wait another six months, Mr. Speaker, as the suggestion is? No, Mr. Speaker. We must implement this measure immediately. Within our deficit reduction strategy, very many decisions were taken on other federal programs. Those transfers are made under federal legislation that is subject to no time constraints and that can be amended at any time. We must act now to control the deficit. Otherwise, because of the increasing debt charges, the Government will be less and less able to support major social services as health and post-secondary education.
They tell us we acted without consultation. That is not true. There has been no surprise. Discussions with the provinces were opened following the Government's economic statement of November, 1984. We told them that no change would be made in 1985-86, but that future years would be reviewed. This respects the Government's commitment on federal-provincial relations. There have been extensive consultations
with the provinces on the manner in which the measures would be implemented. There have been four meetings of Ministers of Finance since the beginning of May and also a conference of First Ministers.
What will happen to the low income provinces, asked the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) a while ago? The basic principle for the EPF transfers if that they are paid on a pro rata basis. Because of this characteristic, the federal Government contributes the same amount for each Canadian. The low income provinces receive additional assistance through equalization payments, more specifically a total amount of $5 billion per year paid to the six provinces of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Manitoba.
Mr. Speaker, what will happen to the provinces which will ! see a reduction in their transfers? asked the Hon. Member for Sudbury a while ago. Again, this is an outright falsehood, because they will not be reduced. They suggested three reasons, three things, or three options: first of all, increase the taxes; second, reduce the services; or third, a combination of the two.
Mr. Speaker, he has just given us the proof that, for Liberals, the notion of reducing expenditures simply does not exist. That is not part of their vocabulary. For them, there is no way of reducing, say, the Budget by reducing the expenditures. Evidence to that effect was submitted a while ago by the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) who has shown that every year over the last three years, their forecasts had been exceeded in tremendous proportions.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, if it is impossible to reduce a deficit, what are his colleagues who have just been elected in Ontario, Quebec, and Prince Edward Island going to do who have proposed to reduce their respective deficits by reducing their expenditures without cutting the services? The EPF scheme is by far the main transfer program to the provinces, and it is the one which has increased the most over the past few years. This is a per capita amount, paid to the provinces, which covers approximately 50 per cent of provincial spending on health insurance and hospital insurance as well as 50 per cent of operating costs of institutions for post-secondary education.
In 1985-86, EPF payments are $508 per capita, to which is added an extra $43 per capita to help finance supplementary health services. EPF transfers have increased according to a movable three-year average of GNP growth linked to population growth. According to current projections, EPF payments will increase by more than 70 per cent over the next five years. In order to save $2 billion in 1990-91, their rate of growth only has to be reduced slightly and will still be at a level well above the rate of inflation and the growth rate of the economy. We have decided to make the requisite saving as part of our strategy for reducing the deficit through EPF. The necessary adjustments will be made starting April 1, 1986, to spread the effects of the change over a period of five years.
April 28, 1986

Mr. Speaker, our commitment to health care and postsecondary education remains as strong as ever. EPF transfers will continue to represent nearly half of provincial spending on health insurance services and on operating costs of institutions for post-secondary education. In the interests of all Canadians, the provinces provide health and educational services, yet must show responsibility in financial matters.
Mr. Speaker, this Government was elected to give Canadians the same kind of or better services for less money. The deficit remains a serious problem which we must resolve with every means at our disposal. This amendment to federal-provincial transfers is part and parcel of our medium-term financial strategy to reduce the deficit by $20 billion in 199091, and the projected national debt level by $75 billion between now and the end of the decade. But we must look beyond figures. These amounts represent our mortgaged future, the inheritance of our children and grandchildren. It is up to us to check the growing federal expenditures, otherwise the debt load will considerably reduce our capacity to deliver the same public services in the future. Mr. Speaker, that is exactly why Canadians asked us to take over the administration of this country on September 4, 1984.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions and comments. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau).


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I would have been more impressed had the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Cote) not been so sanctimonious and had he refrained from accusing the provinces of having mismanaged health and postsecondary administration funds. He comes from a province where considerable efforts have been made for about ten years, I would even say 15 years, to get a handle on expenditures.
I should like to ask him how he explains the fact, for example, that according to the measure under consideration there are two kinds of payments in this transfer formula, namely tax transfers and cash transfers. But as concerns cash payments, how does he explain the fact that, according to the formula, Quebec would no longer receive any cash payments within a few years, and that, under the formula suggested by the Conservative Government, these cash payments will increase more slowly, and substantially so, that the Gross National Product? The Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) could perhaps explain this fact also if he rises to speak. He could perhaps explain why the cash transfer payments will increase at a lower rate than the GNP.
I would like the Hon. Member to explain why it is that, in the provinces whose government has accepted a cost-sharing formula, and this is true for Quebec and other provinces, cash payments will increase more slowly than the GNP, and the rate of increase will even be lower than inflation this year. Could he explain this to me?
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act


Clément M. Côté: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) has just given us another illustration of his ability to distort truth and to misinterpret the comments of those who speak before him.
Mr. Speaker, I never accused the provinces of bad administration or of mismanagement. I said that, in the provinces where Liberal Governments have been elected recently, these Governments have said that they would reduce expenditures. The Hon. Member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith) said earlier-the Members opposite speak about a reduction in transfer payments or cutbacks, but the fact is that they will simply not increase as quickly-these provinces would have only three options open to them: first, an increase in taxes, second, service cutbacks, and third, a combination of both.
So, I said that it could not come to the minds of Liberal Members, who so shamefully dragged the country into debt, who so shamefully wasted the taxpayers' money, it could not come to their minds that expenditures could be reduced by slashing through expenditures. This is how it is done.
Therefore, to answer the second part of your question, Mr. former Quebec Finance Minister, Mr. former Bank President, Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides, you know, Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides that expenditures are proportional to revenues. You must know, this is a fact, that when you were Finance minister in Quebec you did not know that. But I hope that, when you were Bank President, your shareholders reminded you of it. And whenever expenditures were higher than revenues, there was a deficit, we could not go on indefinetely along that road, and cuts had to be made.
Therefore the payments that will be made will not be broken down or divided as you state or as you might like to have it, but they will be in overall amounts, and this, Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides, is at the request of the provinces themselves.


Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Lac-Saint-Jean has just shown a stark lack of knowledge. Why were those fiscal arrangements accepted in 1977, why did the provinces accept them at that time? Because it was definitely accepted that the transfer of tax points was there to acknowledge provincial responsibility for those education and health care jurisdictions. And because of the effect of that legislation and because the Government cannot change tax points for they are collected by Quebec in the case of that province, and they have agreements. Since they cannot tamper with tax points, and I would like to return to my question, how does he then explain that if, as it is claimed, this legislation is so good, how is it that the increase in cash payments, because this is what the federal Government is doing and it cannot change tax points, how is it that the increase in cash payments will be smaller than that of both the GNP and the inflation rate? How does he explain that?


Clément M. Côté: Mr. Speaker, the people in the Lac-Saint-Jean area are not as knowledgeable as the Hon.

April 28, 1986
Metis Nation
Member for Laval-des-Rapides, but in 1976, they sure had enough knowledge to throw them out.
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides should know in his great wisdom that when one makes forecasts and establishes programs, a great many things can change nine years down the road. When in 1977 the provinces and the federal Government came to an agreement on a formula, on rates and amounts, they knew quite well that some time down the road, the situation could change and when it did, the parties would sit down and negotiate again. That's what has happened, Mr. Speaker.
[DOT]	(1650)


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, this Bill is a return of the Liberal attempt to cut the amount of money available for education and health care across the country. It is quite obvious that the tendency towards cutting which appears in the Nielsen Report is going to be in place for quite some time. Federal transfer payments to the provinces are obviously not going to be allowed to increase in line with increases in the Gross National Product or program requirements. This is simply a re-run of the 1981-82 Liberal operation to cut back on the amount of money going to the provinces. While the cost of operation of health care and education increases, the federal government contribution towards those costs decreases. We should recognize that, when we look at the Nielsen Report and other government policies, what is happening is a tendency to keep on-
[DOT]	(1700)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. I am very sorry to interrupt the Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).

It being 5 o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   HISTORIC EVENTS SUGGESTED REAFFIRMATION OF METIS RIGHTS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, February 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. Penner:
That:
Whereas 1985 is the centenary of the Northwest Resistance, the most important event in the history of the Metis Nation and a milestone in the history of Canada; and
Whereas the leader of the Metis people, Louis David Riel, was executed for his role in that resistance; and
Whereas Louis David Riel negotiated Manitoba's entry into Confederation and was thrice elected to the House of Commons; and
Whereas the Metis people have continued to strive, since the death of Louis
David Riel, for the recognition of their rights; and
Whereas the Constitution Act, 1982 recognized and affirmed the rights of
the Metis people;
Be it resolved that this House
1.	acknowledge the significant contributions of the Metis people to the development of the West and the creation of Canada;
2.	recognize Louis David Riel as the founder of Manitoba and a father of Confederation;
3.	celebrate with the Metis their unique culture and heritage;
4.	support self-government and a land base for the Metis.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: We are resuming debate today on this motion and I may remind Members that the period allowed for speeches is now ten minutes under the new rules. Resuming debate.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my home is not many miles from Batoche. I grew up accepting the stature of Louis Riel as a great leader who had attempted democratically to deal with problems of his people. He attempted in the Red River settlement area and later in Batoche to unite the Metis of the area with the other pioneer farmers who felt the same kind of isolation as did the Metis in the area. He tried to unite them into a democratic and political force which would make the Canadian Government deal with the problems of their life and their lifestyle as a developing nation.
Louis Riel's efforts had borne fruit in the Red River settlement. The Government, under the Right Hon. John A. Macdonald, had acquiesced and accepted the basic request of the provisional Government of Manitoba for entrance into Canada as a province. The Government accepted that, but then John A. Macdonald and his Conservative cronies betrayed the people of Manitoba. Instead of acceptance which they had the right to expect, the provisional Government led by Louis Riel was betrayed. Instead of assistance, they got troops. Instead of recognition, Louis Riel was hunted by those troops and several attempts were made to put him under arrest. He was forced to leave the Red River settlement and go into isolation in the States.
Even as Manitoba was recognized as a province and became one because of the Metis action and the leadership of Louis Riel, he found himself exiled. A few years later when he was called back to help the Metis at Batoche and St. Laurent, St. Louis and Duck Lake, he was called back by the same people who had fought alongside of him in the Red River area. The same people who had been betrayed in the Manitoba settlement were the ones who called him back to lead them in the Batoche area. They were people like the Lepine's and the Fiddlers, the McLeans and the McDougalls, the Parenteaus and the Morins, names which are still prominent names in the Batoche, Duck Lake, St. Laurent and St. Louis districts. Those names and those people have survived in that part of Canada around Batoche. They have been the central core of those communities and have contributed a great deal to Canada.
April 28, 1986

People like the McDougalls, the Fiddlers and the Dumonts have made themselves part of a very vital community. These were the people who settled the area, people who had been betrayed at the Red River, were forced out, trekked across the Prairies to the Saskatchewan River and settled in the communities of Batoche, Duck Lake and St. Laurent.
The Metis had no reason to trust the Government of the day. When the Government showed that it was following the same course as it did at the Red River, even Louis Riel wavered in his determination to strive for peace. For 100 years the Metis have fought to stay culturally and ethnically alive. In 1982 they won a battle that had escaped them at the Red River and at Batoche. They won recognition of their rights as a founding people, a founding people who were of mixed blood of the First Nations and of the so-called founding nations of France and the British Isles.
The names that appear in records of the Red River and the Batoche skirmish appear along with others in records of their fight to make those rights part of the mosaic of Canada. It was with a great deal of pride that two weeks ago I watched Mederic McDougall, accompanied by his wife Maryanne Lepine, receive the Order of Canada for service rendered to his people and to Canada. The winning of the recognition of the Metis rights was a political victory won by people like Mederic and many others.
This resolution, should it receive the support of this House, would help to erase the long and widely established discrimination against the Metis people. I commend the Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) for his persistence in bringing forward the motion on the four points which acknowledged the contribution of the Metis people and their right to defend and develop their culture and heritage as well as to have a basis for self-determination. Those points acknowledge the significant contribution of the Metis people to the development of the West and the creation of Canada. It is a small point, but important for the people who, for 100 years, have fought to have that matter recognized, and to recognize Louis David Riel as the founder of Manitoba and the father of Confederation.
Again, who can deny that his original provisional Government in Manitoba was the original Government that brought Manitoba into Confederation? They have fought for it strongly and well, and have won the first step. This House can do little more than acquiesce in that request. We should support selfgovernment and a land base for the Metis. -They have long sought self-determination, and only by such an action can they fulfil that requirement.
Louis Riel was one of the first reformers in western Canada. He was followed by others who formed organizations like the wheat pools, the farmers' union and the CCF. Those movements were allowed to develop and to prosper. After 100 years is it not time to assist the Metis to develop and prosper as well?
Metis Nation


Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to partake in this debate. I want to congratulate all those Hon. Members who I believe have spoken exceedingly well in this debate.
All of us in the House should applaud and agree with the motion in the name of the Hon. Member for Cochrane- Superior (Mr. Penner). My colleague, the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. St. Germain), pointed out with pride that he is a Metis descendant himself. I would encourage Hon. Members to read his speech because I believe it is an excellent description of Metis history as given by a Member of Parliament who, like Louis Riel, is a Metis.
The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy), the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Scott), the Member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Desjardins) and the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) gave excellent speeches.
I agree with much of what has been said. In 10 minutes it is difficult to deal with this subject which is of such importance to all of us who were born in Manitoba and brought up in that province-
[ Translation]
-with the memory of Louis Riel present everywhere. As you know, Mr. Speaker, he was buried near Winnipeg in the city of St. Boniface, and I think most Manitobans admire Louis Riel as the founder of our province and, in fact, of Canada.

It might interest you to know, Mr. Speaker, that I am holding the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica, which has about half a page dealing with Louis Riel. The first entry indicates that he is "a Canadian agitator". While the passage contains some good comments about him, it goes on to state: "His own rashness and the ineptitude of Canadian politicians and officials brought on the uprising of 1885".
Let us turn to The Canadian Encyclopedia which was published recently. One wonders if one is talking about the same person. George Stanley pays Louis Riel great tribute and calls him a founder of Manitoba. He presents the uprising in 1870 sympathetically and, I suggest, accurately, from an historical point of view.
I believe this passage deals with Louis Riel and his followers in a way that I believe all western Canadians would now find acceptable. I might point out that Thomas Scott who was ultimately killed, attempted to arouse Scottish settlers in Manitoba. As someone of Scottish origin, I am sorry if any of my ancestors were involved in that attempt by Scott.
The final entry on Louis Riel in the Canadian Encyclopedia reads:
In the West, the immediate result was to depress the lot of the Metis.
That was after 1885. It goes on:

April 28, 1986
Metis Nation
In central Canada, FRENCH CANADIAN NATIONALISM was strengthened and Honore Mercier came to power in Quebec in 1886.
History does seem to belong to those who win the battles. Fortunately, we in the West are becoming more understanding. Let me refer to a book entitled Strange Empire written by Joseph Kinsey Howard in 1951. This book treats Riel, the Metis and the Prairies with enormous empathy. The preface of the book states:
This is the first book in English that describes the origin of the Metis, that unique people of mixed white and red blood, and there is only one work in French that describes it. It is the first book that traces in any detail the development of the great annual buffalo hunt which was the centre of Metis life or that deals more than perfunctorily with the fascinating lore of the Red River cart.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, in the days that Red River carts were used on the Prairies, they could be heard from a distance of two miles. The preface continues:
And it is the first book that has ever told for American readers the story of the two Metis rebellions that were so dramatic a menace to Canadian union and lighted such a strange hope of American expansion in Canadian territory.
To my knowledge, this book, written in 1951, is the first book that described Louis Riel fairly. Ironically, it was written by an American from Montana.
I suggest that every Canadian should read The Opening of the Canadian West by Douglas Hill. It essentially describes Louis Riel as a hero rather than a criminal. Finally, I would like to refer to a book entitled Manitoba: A History written by William Morton. He is one of the best known historians in Canada in the 20th Century, and is certainly the best known and best loved historian in the Province of Manitoba. I want to quote the following passage from page 138 of Manitoba: A History on Riel.
-he was destroyed by the very force which had raised him to power, the military organization of the Metis. His frantic, often admirable, efforts amid the menace of the Canadian risings, the intrigues of the Americans, the divisions and instability of his own people, to shift the basis of power from the military organization to the civil authority of a provisional government had ended in unmitigated tragedy.
The shooting of Scott was a blunder, so much a blunder that it is difficult to believe a man of Riel's quality could have committed it except under the compulsion of the guards' exasperation and the threat of an Indian rising fomented by Schultz.
I believe Schultz is one of the scoundrels in this story, although my colleague from Brandon-Souris points out that he later became Lieutenant Governor of Manitoba. Morton continues:
It was, unhappily, worse than a blunder-it was unnecessary. The Provisional Government had been accepted and peace was returning to Red River. Schultz was actually in flight and the Indians were quiet.
He goes on to state:
For Riel thereafter there was to be no peace in the Northwest he loved, no peace anywhere but the forlorn peace of exile and the final peace of the gibbet at Regina.
I believe my colleague, the Hon. Member for Brandon- Souris (Mr. Clark), who is an historian, will agree that all people from Manitoba and the Prairies know that Louis Riel is the first genuine hero of our region.
I want to cite a passage on Louis Riel that appears in Canadian Quotations by Robert Hamilton. Edward Blake, the Leader of the Liberal Party of the day, stated it better than anyone, I believe. I agree with him fully. He stated:
Had there been no neglect there would have been no rebellion. If no rebellion, then no arrest. If no arrest, then no trial. If no trial, then no condemnation. If no condemnation, then no execution. They therefore who are responsible for the first are responsible for every link in that fatal chain.
If all of us knew more about Louis Riel, I think all of us would know about a great man who was all too briefly with us.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) presented his motion, because it gives us an opportunity to recall a particularly important page in the history of Canada. There is no doubt that Louis Riel had an enormous impact on the development of this country, and the motion before the House deals implicitly and explicitly with the role he played in the birth of our Canadian nation.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I imagine all Canadians will agree that the Metis have made a vital contribution towards opening up the West and the creation of our country. If we go back to the origins of this people in Canada, we have to go back to the first French-Canadian and English-Canadian settlements and the Indians who were living on the same land. In fact, the paternal ancestors of the Metis were French sailors who came to Canada in 1534 with Jacques Cartier and, a century later, with Champlain. We also find the two great trading companies upon their arrival in the North-West of what is now known as Canada, and I am referring to the Hudson's Bay Company for the English and the Compagnie du Nord-Ouest for the French. On the maternal side, the Metis trace their ancestry to the Indian women who also lived in these Western territories. I think I should point out that the Metis of French origin and those of English origin soon established a climate of friendship and harmony, perhaps because of the solidarity that is the inevitable result of a hard pioneer life. Interestingly, when Louis Riel became the President of a provisional government that was set up to fill the vacuum left by the withdrawal of the Hudson's Bay Company, until the advent of a Canadian government, he enjoyed the support of Metis of all origins.
The Metis have made a valuable contribution to this country, a contribution that is partly connected with their way of life, in other words, their understanding of the ecology of a vast region, their knowledge of hunting and fishing and their ability to survive and prosper in the most inclement climate.
The Metis settled in carefully selected sites, gradually occupying rich lands along the Red, Assiniboine and Seine Rivers. Given the slowness of communications at the time, it was only natural that the Metis should voice concern about the negative impact which a new political regime and the massive influx of immigrants might have on their way of life and their lands. No wonder a dispute broke out in the North-West and Louis Riel became their leader.
Many things have been said and written about Louis Riel, and I am sure a number of Canadians would get to appreciate the man if only they would go to the trouble of reading a few books on his life, whether authored by sympathizers, foes, or impartial historians.
April 28, 1986

Here is what a historian said about Louis Riel: As long as Canada exists, Canadians will want to know who Louis Riel was, for the man is the epitome of the particular dynamics of prevailing tensions in Canada-English against French, Indians against white people, east against west, Canadians against Americans.
Hopefully, in contemporary Canada, such tensions have vanished and groups are not pitted one against another. The fact remains that Louis Riel lived and fought at a time when these tensions were strongest, when the Canadian nation was still in its infancy, when the country's frontiers were still unmarked, and when rights and values still had to be established.
Mr. Speaker, this brings me to the second point of the motion: recognize Louis Riel as the founder of Manitoba and a Father of Confederation.
I have no hesitation in acknowledging the key role played by Louis Riel in the entry of Manitoba into Confederation. First, it should be pointed out that the provisional government led by Louis Riel had been democratically elected by the population of the West to fill the gap between the time when the Hudson's Bay Company renounced its responsibility over Rupert's Land and the moment when a new system was implemented by Canada, which then comprised four provinces: Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia.
At that time, there was uncertainty about the future of Rupert's Land: would it become the colony of a colony or part of the new Dominion?
Louis Riel was wholeheartedly in favour of provincial status. He was one of the strongest supporters of this option, and in fact, he and other members of the provisional government executive council printed a list of rights in both French and English which was to be the official document of the delegates sent by the provisional government to the Canadian authorities. This list ultimately became a key instrument in the development of the 1870 Manitoba Act, under which the province joined Confederation.
This list of rights contained in embryo form the rights and freedoms we enjoy today as well as protection of the language and culture of the minority, which have now become a characteristic of our Federation.
Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware of the great role and importance of Louis Riel. However, I have serious reservations as concerns the part of the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) which asks that Louis Riel be recognized as the founder of Manitoba and a Father of Confederation.
Mr. Speaker, I have these reservations because, in my opinion, it is up to the Manitoba Government alone and not to the Canadian Parliament to make decisions on issues related to its foundation. As for the Fathers of Confederation, I imagine
Metis Nation
that all Canadians have seen the portrait reproduced in numerous Canadian history books which shows them sitting or standing around a long table. These people were in attendance at the Quebec conference in 1864, and they were the delegates of what was then called Canada, namely Quebec and Ontario, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, and even Newfoundland which, as we know, only joined Confederation 85 years later. At that time, what is now Western Canada was not a party to the negotiations, which explains why no Western Canadian is shown in that picture. Of course, this in no way belittles the role played by famous westerners such as Louis Riel and his followers, Father Ritchot, John Black and Alfred Scott who negotiated with Canada with a view to obtaining provincial status for Manitoba.
That picture in no way belittles either the role played in British Columbia by Anthony Musgrave and Dr. J. Helchen, who, after violently opposing Confederation, fought to have British Columbia admitted in 1871. Also deserving was F.W.G. Haultain, first minister for the Territories who worked to make room for Alberta and Saskatchewan in Confederation in 1905. Those people may not be as well known as Louis Riel, but nevertheless they played just as genuine and commendable a role.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that my distinguished colleagues now know many westerners deserve a special place for their efforts to have their respective areas join Confederation. Although they did not all attend the famous Quebec City Conference, their forefathers contributed to make Canada what it is today.
Mr. Speaker, the House will understand that if I admire Louis Riel for the part he played in the creation of Manitoba, I have qualms about a motion which would recognize him as a Father of Confederation without granting the same honour to all the other deserving figures in the history of our country. We should then have to rewrite our history. However, the place which should be rightfully Louis David Riel's in the history of Canada may have been neglected; I believe therefore that his contribution as well as that of his supporters in the development of Canada should be recognized for what they were.


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to add my comments as a Canadian and as a former educator to this motion. The Hon. Member who preceded me in this debate referred to the list of rights drawn up by Louis Riel in a document which became key in determining the provisions of the Manitoba Act of 1870.
Clause 1, for instance, provided that:
The Territories, heretofore known as Rupert's Land and the Northwest, shall not enter into the Confederation of the Dominion of Canada, except as a province.

April 28, 1986
Metis Nation
Clause 5 stated that:
All properties, rights and privileges enjoyed by the people of the province, up to the date of entering into Confederation, be respected and that the arrangement and confirmation of all customs, usages, and privileges be left exclusively to the local legislature.
Clause 16 requested that:
The English and French languages be common in the legislature and in the courts and that all public documents as well as acts of the legislature be published in both languages.
A new Clause 7 appeared in the third draft of the list of rights carried to Ottawa by the official delegates.

That the schools be separated and that the school funds be divided among the various religious denominations, at the pro rata of their respective populations.
So we can see from these clauses just what a strong and enduring influence Riel, as head of the provisional Government, had on the unfolding of Canadian constitutional history. This is a matter which surely cannot be disputed. The proof lies in these documents from over a century ago.
I would now like to turn to the final point raised in the Hon. Member's motion, that is, the matter of self-government and a land base for the Metis people. Historically, Metis communities developed initially along the French fur trade routes to the Great Lakes. With the decline of the fur trade many Metis immigrated to the Red River area in Manitoba. Some went further west to Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia. Of course, others remained in Quebec and the maritime provinces. This early Metis settlement pattern continues today in that the Metis population resides predominantly in our western provinces. It is also primarily in the West that Metis aspirations for self-government and a land base have developed.
The federal Government has a strong and continuing interest in the Metis people. This has been manifested in a number of ways. First, the federal Government has an interest in improving the socio-economic situation of the Metis. In fact, this concern which extends to all aboriginal peoples has been a prime motivating factor for current special initiatives from which Metis benefit. These initiatives include the Rural and Native Housing Program, the Native Economic Development Program, as well as special measures under the agricultural and rural development agreements.
Second, the federal Government has demonstrated its concern and support for the Metis as one of Canada's aboriginal peoples. I note that formal recognition of the Metis as one of Canada's aboriginal peoples came about with passage of the Constitution Act, 1982. Subsequently, representatives of Metis people, together with Indian and Inuit leaders, have been invited to participate in First Ministers' Conferences on aboriginal constitutional matters and associated multilateral
discussions with the federal, provincial and territorial Governments. The purpose of these discussions is to identify and define aboriginal rights for possible entrenchment in our Constitution.
Since the initial First Ministers' Conference on aboriginal constitutional matters, which was convened in 1983, a wide range of issues has been addressed, issues which are central to aboriginal peoples' concerns and aspirations about their rightful place in Canadian society now and in the years ahead. As Members of the House will know, the matter of selfgovernment for Canada's aboriginal peoples, including the Metis, has been a major agenda item in the ongoing aboriginal constitutional process.
In this regard, I note that the federal Government has played an important role in addressing the Metis and other aboriginal peoples' aspirations for self-government. At the April 1985 First Ministers' Conference, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) tabled a proposed political accord which provided for constitutional recognition of a right of aboriginal peoples to self-government, which right would be set out and come into force through agreements between Governments and aboriginal peoples. Furthermore, Governments would be committed to entering into negotiations with aboriginal communities aimed at concluding the appropriate agreements.
Unfortunately, this federal proposal did not achieve a sufficient consensus for the proposed constitutional amendment to proceed. However, self-government will clearly continue to be an important item for discussion during preparations leading up to the next First Ministers' Conference to be held before April, 1987 and the deliberations at the conference. This is why the federal Government agreed to participate in self-government negotiations which are initiated by the provinces and aboriginal associations. In this process the federal Government will continue to work with Metis, other aboriginal leaders and other Governments with a view to developing constitutional provisions for self-government that are acceptable to all Canadians. Similarly, the federal Government will continue to work with the provinces and Metis to improve their socio-economic circumstances and opportunities within Canadian society.
This is the situation in which we find ourselves with regard to the fourth point of the Hon. Member's motion. The Government is very clearly and deeply involved in the constitutional matter.
From what I have said Hon. Members will see that while I am sympathetic to many aspects of the motion, I have some concerns about other aspects, as I indicated earlier.
In concluding my remarks I would like to congratulate the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) on his motion which displays a great sensitivity to the history and aspirations of the Metis people.


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add my views to those already expressed by my colleagues in regard to the motion before us in the name of the Hon.
April 28, 1986

Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner). I think all Canadians can look to the Metis heritage with pride, recognizing in it the strength and vision which characterized the mixture of Indian bloodlines with those of our early European settlers and which has continued right through to this day.
The Metis sense of identity is very strong. It contributes in a major way to the more general Canadian identity. The fact that Louis Riel was a firm believer in the merits of joining Confederation, and that he worked prodigiously to bring what became Manitoba into the union, was a source of pride for the Metis a century ago, as I am sure it continues to be right to this day. I think there can be no question of the importance of his support in giving direction and inspiration to the various documents which the delegates of the provisional Government carried to Ottawa to negotiate with Canada. Among those documents was the list of rights which, in many ways, was a forerunner of the Bill of Rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with which we are so familiar today. Therefore, I sympathize with the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior in terms of the resolutions contained in his motion. The first resolution states that the House:
-acknowledge the significant contributions of the Metis people to the development of the West and the creation of Canada;
The third resolution states that the House:
-celebrate with the Metis their unique culture and heritage;
Let us take these two points and recognize the unique role which the Metis played in the history of Canada. In so doing we must also consider the role played by many other people in the history and development of Canada. It is true that prior to Confederation the Metis people around the Red River settlement had a unique colony. However, there were other people with them-French and English people, as well as a group of Scottish people who had come across the north Atlantic, into Hudson Bay, to Churchill and down to the Red River settlement. Thus there were many people who contributed in a very unique way to the building of the West and to the creation of the western provinces.
In that sense we must acknowledge all of these different people. Yes, the Metis had a unique role; but so did the many others who followed them. I am reminded of those who followed once the railway was in place, as well as the many other people from the Ukraine who made a unique contribution to the West. They, too, played a unique role. The riding of Kitchener which I represent has, in fact, an older role in terms of people coming to it. The Metis events about which we are talking were carried on from the 1860s through to 1885. The role about which I speak in my riding goes back to the time of the United Empire Loyalists. Some of the German people of whom I speak worked with the British in the United States. Once the revolutionary war was over, these German people came up into Ontario and into the area known as Kitchener-[DOT] Waterloo. They were here 100 years prior to the events surrounding Louis Riel. Historically speaking, that is almost 200 years compared with just a little over 100 years for the others.
Metis Nation
It is also important to recognize that although the Metis had their unique contribution to make, these German-speaking people brought to Canada many industrious people who built various industries across Canada. They contributed a unique flavour to the Kitchener-Waterloo area. There is no question of their importance to that area. I should also note that they are the third largest cultural or heritage group in Canada following the English and the French. In that sense, we should recognize their unique contribution to Canada. I can sympathize with the Hon. Member who wants us to see the unique contribution these people have made and to celebrate their culture with them. I think we should celebrate the many cultures that make up Canada. They all make up this country and the people of Canada.
I have great difficulty, however, with part two of the resolution which reads as follows:
2. recognize Louis David Riel as the founder of Manitoba and a father of Confederation-
To recognize Louis David Riel as the founder of Manitoba is simply to recognize what happened in history. In fact, he is the founder of Manitoba. He formed a provisional Government with the Metis people in the Red River settlement when there was no official territorial Government from Ottawa. He filled the vacuum with his provisional Government. That provisional Government then instituted order in the territory of Manitoba around the sight of present-day Winnipeg. In that sense, it is correct to recognize the role of Louis David Riel and to say that he was the founder of Manitoba.
In fact, the federal Government recognized in 1869, in the creation of Manitoba itself, the role of Louis Riel. The Province of Manitoba has recognized the unique role played by Louis David Riel with statues of him which are in place on the grounds of the Legislative Assembly. In that sense, there is no question that he was the founder of Manitoba, and that is something for which we must recognize him.
The resolution goes on to say that we should also recognize Louis David Riel as a Father of Confederation. I have some difficulty with that. First we must look at who are the Fathers of Confederation as they appear in our history books. We think of those 34 delegates who met together at three conferences beginning in Charlottetown in 1864, continuing with longer meetings in Quebec City, and finally with meetings in London, England. As a result of those meetings, the BNA Act was brought together and Canada was then formed out of the five colonies that existed prior to that time. Those are the people we traditionally accept as our Fathers of Confederation.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: What about Smallwood?


John Henry Reimer: An Hon. Member has asked about Smallwood. Some people have said that when Newfoundland was brought into Confederation in 1949, Joey Smallwood became the only living Father of Confederation. In a sense, we can accept him

April 28, 1986
Metis Nation
as the only living Father of Confederation, but with regard to Louis Riel, I have some other difficulties.
I taught Canadian history at Forest Heights Collegiate High School in Kitchener. When teaching what Louis Riel did and what we recognize him for, I tried to let my students know first exactly what happened. Once we knew exactly what the facts were, we could then debate those facts and their significance.
There is no question that Louis Riel formed a provisional Government in 1869 and was responsible for the formation of Manitoba. However, he also did some other things. Louis Riel chose to take the law into his own hands and to execute Thomas Scott. Thomas Scott was not a model citizen. There was nothing to commend him in that way. However, there was nothing he did to deserve death. In fact, one of the representatives of Louis Riel's church begged him not to execute Scott because he did not deserve to die. Louis Riel replied that he had to execute Scott to assert his authority, and so he shot him. I have some difficulty supporting someone like that as a Father of Confederation.
There is no question that Louis Riel assisted the Metis and Indians in the 1885 uprising in the territory of Saskatchewan. He had a very positive role in that, but chose to attack the constituted authority of the day, the Northwest Mounted Police. That led to the deaths of settlers, Indians, Metis, and some soldiers. In that sense, I have great difficulty accepting someone as a Father of Confederation who attacked that very Confederation itself.
When the authorities had to deal with that situation and determine whether he was innocent or guilty of a crime, he was judged to be guilty of treason and was therefore executed. I have great difficulty saying that that is a person who should be accepted as a Father of Confederation.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, we often hear Hon. Members start their remarks in this way: "I had not intended to take part in this debate". In fact, I had not intended to do so. But having heard what several Hon. Members had to say, I thought that we would put the matter to a vote. We have heard one NDP Member and four PC Members. It is clear that once again, we shall not come to a vote.
There is one thing that I have seldom been able to understand, Mr. Speaker, and it is the fact that each time we have had to deal with Riel over the past 23 years, an atmosphere of mystery had suddenly set upon the House. Hon. Members are ill at ease. They do not want to speak against him, but they do not want either to recognize what Riel has really been for Canada.

My hon. colleague from Kitchener, who is a former teacher, said that he has some difficulty recognizing Louis Riel as a Father of Confederation or as a founder of Manitoba. The Hon. Member said that he taught his students to find out
exactly what happened and then to debate the significance of it, and that is very fair. The significance is always the same.
If today we were to reject everyone who built a country whose past was not the type my colleague would like to support, many countries would not exist. I will not mention now some countries in the Middle East, but I may at the end of my remarks.
The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) spoke of the great Liberal Leader of the day who asked: "Why was Louis Riel hanged? He was hanged because he was condemned to hang". He was condemned to be hanged because he was found guilty of an action that was against the welfare of the Metis, and some people did take action against the welfare of the Metis.
Louis Riel started out very well. He started out by saying that his people were ready to build a new province. That was legal and he did it properly. However, why did he end up the way he did? Why does my colleague and many others have so much difficulty accepting Louis Riel? It is because at the very end of his life, he was hanged.
We must look at why Louis Riel was hanged. Do we not see many tragedies occuring around the world today? Everybody is talking about terrorism. How many people rise in the House of Commons or the Congress of the United States to try to go to the roots of any of the problems of today? Why would we not do the same today and try to go to the real root of the Riel question? We should not look at the very end of his life but at the beginning.
There were injustices and the Metis yelled to the good conscience of the Canadian people that they were the subject of injustices. Did enough people listen to their concerns? No. Therefore, they went from that step to another. Do we not see the same thing in the world today? People begin by expressing acceptable views, to which no one listens. Then they start throwing rocks, and no one listens. Then they start using violence, and no one listens. Then the killing starts. Perhaps I am taking a lot of time today to reflect upon what we should really do.

My colleague the Hon. Member for Jonquiere says that there are several others. He is right.
My friend from Jonquiere said that there were many others in British Columbia and Saskatchewan. That was also said by Mr. Smallwood. We all agree, but the subject matter we are discussing today is that of Louis Riel.

We should not try to draw a red herring. The subject matter of today's debate is Louis Riel. Over the past 20 years, Metis people have been trying to have Louis Riel's contribution recognized. In the House, it has never been possible to come to
April 28, 1986

a vote on the Louis Riel issue. Hon. Members rise in the House and pay him tribute. There was a time, long ago, when none of them would pay him tribute. But they have gradually come to realize that since it is no longer possible to attack Louis Riel in 1986, they must glorify him. They suggest that he was a great gentleman. Some will say that he was one of the founding fathers of Manitoba. They go as far as saying that he is a Father of Confederation. They will add that we should celebrate with the Metis their unique culture and heritage. They will recognize the important contribution of the Metis people to the development of Western Canada and to the creation of Canada. We all agree on this. But we talk and we talk, and we refuse to let the motion come to a vote.
I think we should ask ourselves-and my comments are directed to the Hon. Member for Jonquiere (Mr. Blackburn) and his Quebec colleagues-I think we should ask ourselves the real question: Why do we never get to a vote? Because there is always the same uneasiness. I think it is time we got rid of that feeling. There is no one in this House who is guilty of committing the acts that were committed at the time. Today, we could finally decide to recognize what Riel and what the Metis people mean to Canada.
Last week, a number of Members were on the Hill to commemorate the Armenian hollocaust. Why are the Armenians still coming back 71 years later? What do they want? They want the Turkish Government to recognize that an act was committed and they want this to be historically recognized. They want a remedy.
I could even go so far as to say: What do the Palestinians want today? They want justice for what they and many others consider to be an injustice, since Canada voted in favour of two States in 1947-48. Canada, the Soviet Union, the United States and Czechoslovakia voted in favour of Resolution 181. What do they want? They want the job to be finished properly. What do the Metis want? You can draw so many parallels, and it all boils down to the same thing. Mr. Speaker, we will understand when we realize what makes people act in desperation. We will understand if we go back to the root of the problem.

When we are faced with difficult problems, we should go back to the root of each problem in an attempt to understand. We are not asking for much. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner), who presented the motion is not asking for much. He is not asking anyone to apologize. He is asking Canadians in 1986 to make a great gesture by recognizing the Metis and Louis Riel.
It seems that this matter will not be brought to a vote today. I see the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathona across the way. Perhaps he and I, the Hon. Member for Kitchener (Mr. Reimer), the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo), and my colleague who introduced the motion could put our heads together and come back some day with something which is acceptable to everyone and upon which we could vote. That
Metis Nation
may be the solution. It seems that we always come back with a motion or a petition to recognize what Louis Riel did. It will always be divisive. Let us not fool ourselves; let us not lie to each other. We know why. Some people are very uncomfortable with Louis Riel. Hon. Members will notice that I am not referring to Conservatives, Liberals or members of the New Democratic Party. In fact, they were non-existent at that time. However, some people are uncomfortable with Louis Riel, but I like to tackle things head on, publicly. Perhaps such is the case. Maybe this is the beauty of debate and why 5.55 p.m. is more important than people think. I have listened to my colleagues. I see the Government Whip coming into the House. Perhaps he is coming here to ensure that we vote or we do not vote; I do not know.
In conclusion, I should like to indicate that we should try to come to terms with each other. I say openly that I am ready to sit on a smaller committee of interested Members of Parliament. I am sure the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona would be delighted to do that. I am also sure the historian from Kitchener would like to participate, as would the Hon. Member for Scarborough East (Mr. Hicks). Perhaps that small committee could consider the motion and would come to the conclusion that a debate on supporting self-government and a land base for the Metis would be too long at this time. Maybe it would be okay the next time.
The Metis are what they are today. There are people who believe in what Louis Riel did. Surely Members of Parliament who believe that the time has come to recognize him can come together in a small committee. I see some Hon. Members indicating that they agree with what I have said. I will pursue it, because I am honestly tired of seeing a debate on Louis Riel every year, where people watch each other and other Members rush to the House to participate in the debate in case a vote is taken. I do not think that is fair to Louis Riel. I do not think that is fair to the Metis. If we could have the kind of debate to which I referred, perhaps it would be better than what we are trying to do today.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect for my colleague from Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), he says he has been listening to comments on the debate for 20 years. He is still talking about it today. Indeed he was in the House for several of those years.


Marcel Prud'homme: Of course, it is because it has always been proposed by Opposition Members. I did not want to raise a political argument, but if the Hon. Member does, then so will I. There were Bills, but invariably they were all talked out. This is what I was trying to tell you.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. Let us go on with the debate.


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a couple of minutes. First I should like to

April 28, 1986
Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act
address the comments of the Hon. Member for Saint Denis (Mr. Prud'homme). I agree with him that Private Members' Hour has been mysterious. Over the years I have observed various debates on Bills and resolutions when he was in government and now when we are in government. There is a new system for Private Members' Hour whereby twenty Bills are drawn and six have to come to debate. I am sure my friend would acknowledge that that is a major step ahead. It is also a satisfying role for us as private Members because we can spread information among our fellow colleagues as well as people in general.
and referred to a legislative committee, and the amendment of Ms. Copps (p. 833).


@Acting Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 13(5), the House will now proceed to the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion for second reading of Bill C-45, an Act respecting employment and employer and employee relations in the Senate and House of Commons.
Call in the Members.

;
For me the life of Louis Riel was the life of an individual struggling against power and the abuse of power by Government. Whether or not it is so in Ireland today, it is an argument against extremism. Surely our role is to temper the extremism with which people in the ordinary population become involved because they have not sat down and looked at the facts. That is true whether it is in Ireland or in South Africa or whether it was in the West during metrication.
Louis Riel is the story of the West and its land, the attachment of people to the land. My friend opposite would be the first to acknowledge what happened when the previous Government, his administration, tried to change to the metric system thousands of miles in the West which had been surveyed, every mile going from east to west and every two miles going from north to south. It was as much an attack on the culture of the West as was Sir John A. Macdonald and the surveyors coming to the West to impose that very system. It was the very insensitivity of the Government that was apparent. Surely our role as individuals is to try to ameliorate that.
I would be happy to sit down to work toward a resolution which would give Louis Riel the acknowledgement he deserves. Clearly he is a western hero who stood up to the power of Government and the abuse of power by Governments.


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




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, April 25, 1986, consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-45, an Act respecting employment and employer and employee relations in the Senate and House of Commons, be read a second time
(Division No. 243)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	de Corneille	NicholsonAlthouse	Finestone	(Trinity)Angus	Frith	NystromBerger	Garneau	ParryBlaikie	Gauthier	Prud'hommeBoudria	Hopkins	RiisCaccia	Hovdebo	RossiCassidy	Kaplan	Skelly-25.Copps	McCurdy	
Desjardins Dorin Epp
(Provencher)
Fennell
Forrestall
Fraleigh
Fretz
Gottselig
Gray
(Bonaventure-Iles-dela-Madeleine)
++NAYS
Members
Andre	Greenaway	Pennock	Attewell	Hamelin	Peterson	Beatty	Hamilton	Porter	Blackburn	Hawkes	Price	(JonquiSre)	Hicks	Ravis	Blenkarn	Hnatyshyn	Redway	Brightwell	Kilgour	Reimer	Clark	King	Ricard	(Yellowhead)	Layton	St. Germain	Clark	Lesick	St-Julien	(Brandon-Souris)	Lewis	Scowen	Collins	Mailly	Shields	Cook	Malone	Sparrow	C6te	Marin	Stevens	(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Mayer	Stewart	Crofton	McCrossan	Tardif	Crouse	McCuish	(Charlesbourg)	de Cotret	McDougall	Taylor	
(St. Paul's) Mclnnes McKenzie McKnight McMillan Minaker Mitges Moore Nickerson Nielsen Oberle O'Neil
Thacker
Towers
Tremblay
(Qu6bec-Est)
Tupper
Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Valcourt Vankoughnet Vincent Winegard Wise-79.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I declare the amendment negatived. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on a point of order.
April 28, 1986


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) whether he can tell us what the House will be doing tomorrow.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Bills C-45, C-96 and C-75.
Business of the House


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It being 6:23 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6:23 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Tuesday, April 29, 1986