1987-03-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Section 9 of the Representation Act, 1985, Chapter 8, Statutes of Canada, 1986, to lay upon the table a certified copy of the 1987 report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Prince Edward Island.

Pursuant to the Act, this report is deemed to have been referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.


INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS
Hon. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 101 to present to the House a report on the meeting of the delegation of the Canadian Branch of the Canadian Parliamentary Association to Barbados and Grenada in February, 1987, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Committee, I have the honour to present the report of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-38, an Act respecting the reorganization and divestiture of Teleglobe Canada, with amendments, in both official languages.


LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION-FIRST REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration concerning unemployment insurance in both official languages. In accordance with Standing Order 99(2), I request that the Government make a comprehensive response to this first report.
First, I want to pay tribute to committee members who have laboured long and hard. In the last two weeks I recall four occasions when the committee meetings began early in the morning and concluded at midnight or shortly thereafter. I think that that type of schedule speaks to the complexity of unemployment insurance. It also speaks to the importance of unemployment insurance in the Canadian mosaic. Our report contains 90 recommendations from all three Parties. There was agreement on 89 of those recommendations and slight differences on only one. I think that speaks for the spirit of cooperation which members have shown in this endeavour.
The major feature of the changes recommended by the committee are to restore equity from coast to coast, in a geographic sense. We hope the days are over when there were first-class unemployed in some regions of the country and second-class unemployed in other regions.
We are also recommending that the beneficiaries of unemployment insurance will increasingly be allowed to take better control of their own lives by becoming trained and retrained while receiving benefits. I believe it is the first time that a committee of the House has recommended that as a matter of right, adult Canadians who do not have a basic education be allowed to use their benefit periods to seek that basic education. We think it is a major attack on the problem of functional illiteracy in this country. If our advice is to be

March 19, 1987
Point of Order-Mr. Allmand
followed by the Government and this Parliament, we think it will make an enormous difference.
I believe Members will also be pleased with the notion of eligibility being determined on the basis of 400 hours of work. While this seems simple at first blush, this refers to the resource nature of this country, in the oil industry, fishing, forestry and many other sectors of the Canadian economy in which people work large numbers of hours in a week. Previously, unemployment insurance did not acknowledge the reality that people may work 100 or 120 hours in a week rather than the normal 40 hours a week associated with the manufacturing industry. We are pleased to be able to assert a recommendation that would acknowledge the resource sector and its differential work patterns.
There are many other recommendations, including major reorganization, but I think those three thrusts represent significant departures. I hope they will find favour with the Government and the Parliament of Canada.


PRESENTATION OF THE THIRD REPORT OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business, in both official languages.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings. ]

[DOT] (mo)


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, when my colleague, the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration was tabling the report of the standing committee with respect to unemployment insurance, a report which I, for the greater part, support, he made some lengthy comments. It seems to me that while I support much of what he said, I think it is appropriate that when one makes such a lengthy statement in tabling a report, the opposition critics should have similar time to comment as well.
If I understand correctly, the usual rule is that you simply table the report. I think it is a good thing that the Chairman is able to make the kind of comments he made. However, I also believe that if he does make that kind of comment, which is similar to comments made when a Minister makes a statement
on Motions, opposition critics should have a similar short period of time to make comments as well.
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. In the same vein, I applaud much of what our Chairman has said. I would think it is a good idea if we had a few minutes to highlight, from our perspective, the work which was done in this particular committee with this particular report. I think it does signal a new mood in committees. We have come up with a report which has the support of all Parties in this House. In fact, only one Member from the government side-and it is in the report-departed from the rest of his colleagues with respect to the issue of pension income as earned income. I think there was only that one departure. I would ask Your Honour to consider giving us an opportunity to respond briefly.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would not for a moment want to be seen to be prohibiting freedom of expression in the House. However, I think we are dealing here with the tabling of a document. It has been customary in previous Parliaments, and this Parliament, to allow for certain non-partisan remarks to be made by the individual in his or her capacity as chairperson of that committee. I think that is appropriate and is well understood.
I would suggest to the Chair that the Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure is presently reviewing the Standing Orders. It seems to me that if a new practice is to be created, and I am not for a minute suggesting it should or should not be created, the format for dealing with a change in our procedures should be through changes to the Standing Orders rather than by a point of order on the floor of the House.
For that reason, I think my colleagues have had their opportunity to comment and in future we should simply try to confine the remarks to those pertinent to the tabling of the reports, and any comments a Member may want to make should be made during Question Period or outside the House.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to comment. First, I am happy to see that the annualization principle that had detrimental effects for fishermen of the Atlantic provinces has been unanimously rejected. I am happy to see Conservative Members oppose the Government's decision to take pension income into account to reduce unemployment benefits. I am also very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that Members of the House, be they Liberal, Conservative or New Democrat, worked in a very constructive way.


Philip Derek Lewis: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.
March 19, 1987

Petitions


Mr. Speaker:: I think perhaps the Chair might comment, and I note the Elon. Parliamentary Secretary calling for a point of order.

The Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) has finished speaking.

Perhaps the Chair could assist Hon. Members. What has happened here is that pursuant to the Standing Orders, the Hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), as Chairman of the committee, has reported to the House on a report from that committee concerning the whole question of unemployment insurance, and it is clearly a very important matter. The Hon. Member for Calgary West has also commented on the fact which is, I think, a credit to the committee, if the Chair can say so, that there was great unanimity and that members of all Parties collaborated and worked very hard on the committee report. The report has already received some attention in the news and it is perhaps not too hard to understand why the Chairman of the committee wished to say a few more words than a committee chairman would ordinarily do when bringing in a report of such nature to the House.
What has happened is that other Hon. Members have risen and said that when there is a statement like that, perhaps it would be appropriate if representations from the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party were also permitted. I take it literally that the Chair is being asked if the Chair could accede to that request at this time. I draw to the attention of Hon. Members Rule 99(1) which states:
Reports to the House from committees may be made by Members standing in their places, at the time provided pursuant to Standing Order 19(3) or 82(15)(c), provided that the Member may be permitted to give a succinct explanation of the subject-matter of the report.
This House can do anything by consent, of course. If it were the disposition of the House at any given time, on any particular report, to hear as well from representatives of the other Parties, and if the House agreed, then that of course would be completely appropriate. However, the Chair is in the position, in this case, of having to look to the rule. On some other occasion, and even on this occasion, the Chair does not, under any circumstances, wish to close off legitimate comment or what might even become debate, if it were the wish of the House to do so. However, I think that under the circumstances, the Chair must adhere to the rule and say to Hon. Members and to the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand), the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart), that looking at the rule, the Chair cannot unilaterally take away from that rule and give the permission requested. In saying this, the Chair is in no way diminishing the importance of the matter. As the Chair indicated a few moments ago, and I think I am quite permitted to say it again, the House, and the country as well, owes a great deal to the work of all Parties in the preparation of this report.


Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is raising a point of order.


Jean-Pierre Blackburn: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, but the point of order has been dealt with.


PETITIONS
Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: I have the honour, Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, to table a petition signed by 32 residents of the Montreal area who object to the amendments proposed in Bill C-22 to the Patent Act. They consider that the government proposals will increase the already high costs of provincial health care systems and will directly affect all Canadians who are not covered under private drug insurance schemes. The undersigned call upon the Canadian Parliament to reject those proposals which will increase drug prices for all Canadians.


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: I also have the honour to present a second petition dealing with housing policy in Canada. That petition is signed by 36 residents of the Montreal area who object to the decision of the Government to bring about major changes in the housing policy in Canada. They believe that in this International Year of Shelter for the Homeless the definition of essential needs as understood by this Government prevents hundreds of thousands of Canadians living under the poverty line to receive housing assistance from the Government. Wherefore, the undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to increase immediately the assistance provided for co-operative housing programs.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition dealing with Canada Post Corporation. The petition is signed by a number of constituents from the Glengarry-Prescott- Russell riding who are objecting against the decision of Canada Post to reduce its service in rural as well as in urban areas. This petition is signed by 1,116 constituents of my riding. They are joining in with the 5,606 people who have already voiced their complaint for a grand total of 6,723.
The undersigned are residents of the communities of Plantagenet, Treadwell, St. Albert, Alfred, Casselman,

March 19, 1987
Order Paper Questions
Limoges, Embrun, Bourget, Apple Hill, Green Valley, Glen Robertson, Alexandria, Russell, Clarence Creek, Saint-Bernardin, Dalkeith, Dunvegan, l'Orignal, Hammond, Rockland and Wendover in the riding which I have the honour and privilege to represent.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the duty to present a petition that is in accordance with Standing Order 106. The undersigned, residents of Canada, now prevail themselves of their right to present a grievance against the decision to close Rideau Hall made by the National Capital Commission, the Department of Public Works, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Office of the Governor General, without prior notice. The closure of this attractive and tranquil park affects thousands of visitors to the capital from across the country who held Canada's uniquely accessible Rideau Hall as a symbol of the trust, openness and democracy of which Canadians are so justly proud. And the area residents from the entire National Capital Region who have used and enjoyed the grounds of Rideau Hall, recognizing the security concerns that prompted the closure decision, cannot accept a blanket closure of the 20-acre park to public access. Wherefore, the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to open the decision for consultation with a group of citizens, representative of the large and growing opposition, in order that a modus vivendi can be created that would satisfy the Government and the public.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106. In this petition people from Norway House, Snow Lake, The Pas, Churchill, Flin Flon and Thompson, Manitoba, express their concern about the Government's intention to change the Patent Act relating to prescription drugs. They believe this measure will increase drug prices for Canadian consumers and severely restrict the ability of average Canadians to buy necessary prescription drugs. They also believe that it will hurt those Canadians whose health needs require the purchase of prescription drugs on an ongoing basis. In their petition they also state that they believe that this is yet another example of the Canadian Government making concessions to the United States at the expense of average Canadians in the free trade negotiations.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the Hon. Member might be good enough to give us the date
of certification of the petition and the name of the Member who presented it for certification.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Certainly, Mr. Speaker. The name of the person who asked for the petition to be certified is Rod Murphy, which you may have guessed from the fact that all the communities listed on the petition are from the federal riding of Churchill. I believe the petition was certified according to the regulations by the Clerk of Petitions on January 6 of this year. I do not know whether or not the petition went to the Government House Leader for ratification.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. If we cannot trust Members of Parliament to present petitions in this House in their proper form and in the proper manner, then why does the Parliamentary Secretary get up each time and ask Hon. Members to identify who gave it authorization, who signed it and under what authority? I think that a gentleman's trust is involved here. Hon. Members must trust other Hon. Members in this House.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I can only say to my hon. colleague that the reason for the question I ask will unfold with the passage of time.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all the questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not disagree with the request of the Parliamentary Secretary. However, in the vein of questions he has been asking members of the Opposition lately, can he tell the House the date for the question which the Government has yet to provide an answer and has been on the Order Paper the longest?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is not sure whether or not the Parliamentary Secretary can answer such a question. Perhaps the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) and the Parliamentary Secretary can discuss the matter in their own time.
Shall all the questions on the Order Paper be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 19, 1987



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Tom Hockin (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act.

Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members remember the statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) when he introduced this Bill last week.

This statement sets out very clearly the main purpose of the Bill. It is to provide strong financial support to the lower income provinces by renewing the equalization program. I say "strong financial support" because that is what renewal of the equalization program means.
Under this Bill total equalization entitlements are expected to grow substantially in the years ahead. They should grow from about $5.3 billion in 1986-87 to about $5.6 billion in 1987-88 and about $5.9 billion in 1988-89. This means estimated increases of about $300 million each year, or over 5 per cent growth annually.
As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) indicated in his statement, this Bill will also provide for the net forgiveness of about $270 million owed to the federal Government under equalization as a result of the 1986 census.

In short, Madam Speaker, this Bill is aimed at giving low revenue provinces the financial assistance they need. This Bill shows the federal Government's clear intention to give them that assistance.

I will briefly underline the significance the Government attaches to the provision of equalization. As the Minister of Finance said in his statement, there are few federal programs as important as equalization. It is part of the fabric of this country. Indeed, the provision of equalization has become so accepted in this country that a commitment to the principle of making these payments is now included in the Constitution.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
The unconditional cash transfers which the federal Government provides to the low income provinces under equalization are funds which they can use as they choose to help provide public services. They are unconditional cash transfers.
This assistance is provided on the basis of the relative strength of provincial economies vis-a-vis one another. Lower income provinces with relatively stronger economies are in a position to finance services more directly themselves. Those which are not as well off relatively speaking have more need for federal assistance.

Naturally the Atlantic provinces benefit more from this kind of federal Government assistance. However the assistance is important as well to Quebec and Manitoba, and more recently to Saskatchewan.
Madam Speaker, our Government is fully aware that equalization payments are an important aspect of the financial structure of low revenue provinces.

That is why the federal Government has acted repeatedly to increase equalization payments despite its own financial difficulties. We did this two years ago when we provided $285 million in special payments outside the regular program. There was no obligation to do this. We are doing it now by renewing the equalization program. This renewal includes some adjustments being implemented over two years which will contribute to the enhanced growth of total payments. We are also doing it through the net forgiveness of amounts owed to the federal Government under equalization as a result of the 1986 census. It is worthwhile to remind the House of the net forgiveness of these amounts which was announced last week.
As the statement of the Minister of Finance indicates, the forgiveness of equalization overpayments arising from the 1986 census is not something the Government is compelled to do. These overpayments are part of the normal process of adjustments to payments, both up and down, which take place on an ongoing basis. The Government is taking this step because it wants to be helpful. It recognizes and understands the cash flow and financial difficulties faced by the provinces receiving equalization.

Our decision will help the Atlantic provinces, Quebec and Saskatchewan, and will lighten their tax burden.

Manitoba is not affected by this provision because it does not owe the federal Government money under equalization as a result of the census. Instead, Manitoba will automatically receive a further $15 million.

Madam Speaker, this Bill also reorganizes the system designed to set minimum and maximum equalization pay-

March 19, 1987
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
merits, a system of lower and upper limits which was established recently but has yet to be implemented.

As Members will be aware, this Act also contains a number of other programs and provisions which together make up what is generally known as "the fiscal arrangements". These programs, that is the authority to enter into agreements with the provinces for the collection of income taxes and for the payment of each others' sales and excise taxes, the personal income tax revenue guarantee, and Established Programs Financing, will all continue essentially unchanged.
The fiscal stabilization program which provinces have said they would like to see continue will also be maintained. Some adjustments are being made to improve and clarify the program in light of difficulties which have arisen in its administration, but in administration only. Should any future stabilization payments be very large, any assistance in excess of a base amount will also take the form of an interest-free loan. In fact, the stabilization program is likely to be triggered infrequently. It provides for a federal payment to a province in the event its revenues were to decline from one year to the next because of an economic downturn. In short, the main thrust of this legislation is to review and extend existing fiscal arrangements programs and provisions.
Before concluding, it is important that I say a word about federal-provincial consultation because everything in this Bill has been discussed with the provinces. As Members will be aware, the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act involves federal legislation and federal expenditures. Amendments do not require provincial consent. The Government is, however, strongly committed to open discussion and consultation with the provinces, whether or not they need provincial consent.

We held lengthy consultations with the provinces before introducing this Bill. These consultations began in 1985, almost two years before changes were to be made to the existing program. Therefore the provinces have had every opportunity to contribute directly to improving the program.

In conclusion, Madam Speaker, this Bill comes before the House at this time because Parliament has traditionally authorized equalization payments for five years at a time. The present equalization authority is scheduled to expire on March 31 of this year. It needs to be renewed if payments to provinces are to continue without interruption. This Bill makes clear the Government's continuing commitment to equalization. Our willingness to do as much as we can to assist the lower income provinces is made very clear in this Bill. The Bill provides large and growing support under equalization. It comes on top of other strong support we are giving to less wealthy regions of the country. It will extend and improve other federal-provincial fiscal arrangements programs and provisions. It follows a long process of consultation with the provinces.
For all those reasons, Madam Speaker, I call upon all Members of the House to give assent to this Bill.


Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Madam
Speaker, I listened carefully to the Minister of State (Finance) (Mr. Hockin) as he extolled the virtues of Bill C-44. In my speech, I intend to show that his enthusiasm is out of touch with reality. In fact, if we consider both the additional transfers the provinces have received under equalization, as the Minister said, together with the cuts the same provinces have suffered under established programs financing, which includes post-secondary education, health insurance and hospital insurance which are all part of the fiscal arrangements, the provinces stand to lose nearly $400 million over 1987-88 alone. Madam Speaker, in my speech I intend to prove that the provinces will lose money.

In fact, if the additional equalization transfers which the provinces are to receive are taken together with the cuts, they will suffer in health care and post-secondary education financing and they will lose close to $400 million in the fiscal year 1987-88.
Madam Speaker, before getting into the specifics of the Bill and the reasons why it would be very difficult for us to support the Government, I would first like to give a short overview of the history of equalization payments to the provinces.
In the middle of the fifties, subsequent to a recommendation made by the Rowell-Sirois Royal Commission of Inquiry just after the war years, the Liberal Government introduced a series of measures in an attempt to improve the balance between Canada's various regions. Following an in-depth study conducted by Maurice Lamontagne, later a Member of this House and a Member of the Government-at this point I would like to pay tribute to the work done by Mr. Lamontagne, and there was also a task force consisting of Members of this House, including one who later played an important role in Quebec politics, the Hon. Jean Lesage, who was a Member of this House and a Member of the Liberal Government headed by Mr. Louis St-Laurent-therefore, as a result of this work, the Government introduced the principle of equalization.
Equalization means enabling each province to offer the people of that province the same number and level of services. The general objective was to give Canadian citizens the same opportunities, whether they were living in Newfoundland, British Columbia, Manitoba, Alberta or Quebec. The proposal is a very liberal idea and reflects a concept of Canada the Liberal Party has always had: Canadians across this country should have access to comparable services.
Subsequently, after this measure had been in effect for several years, the Economic Council of Canada pointed out in
March 19, 1987

a rather detailed study that equalization payments were not welfare in disguise. In fact, the economic value of equalization payments was important for all regions in the country and for the Canadian economy in general.
According to this principle, the federal Government took the per capita income received by the provinces from various fiscal sources and set a national average. That was the principle of the legislation that became effective on April 1, 1957 and has been maintained all these years, namely, the national average based on the income of the richest province or of a group of provinces. Some changes were made over the years because of developments in the economy and major variations in the prices of certain raw materials, so that from year to year, there were some changes involving either substantial additional payments or the reduction of some of those payments.
Therefore the basis of this legislation, the equalization payments, reflects a perception of this country that was held by the Liberal Government at the time and has been maintained over the years.
That concept of equal chances, equal opportunities for Canadians in my view is reflected in the theory that the central Government, if we are to maintain some political unity and some regional balance, must get involved with its national policies. And in the management of public affairs, because we wanted this country that is called Canada to be managed differently than that country which is called the United States, our neighbours to the south-because we wanted to be a nation of regions, a Canadian mosaic-we have devised and the successive governments inspired by the liberal view have maintained the idea that in Canada, central Government involvement was needed to maintain regional balance. And that quest for balance has led to equalization payments and national policies with respect to health, hospital care and postsecondary education.
That vision we have for this country has also led successive Liberal Governements to develop housing policies, transportation policies, financial institution policies. And I think it is worthwhile, upon entering the discussion on Bill C-44, to remind the Conservative Government that this nation was built because of national policies-as I have said before in this House-and the wilful deregulation policy constantly pursued by this Government is destroying that concept which Canadians have always had of the role of their national Government and of the role which this Parliament, the House of Commons have played in the development of Canada's social fabric and policies.
This is why I maintain, Madam Speaker, that equalization is one of the tools, one of the key elements of the vision we have developed for this country over the years. The so-called equalization payments do not only transfer moneys from the federal Treasury to the provincial Treasuries, they are much more-they express a vision of this country, a concept that was developed and accepted by Canadians over the years and that is important to them. Equalization payments are provided for under a piece of legislation that is much wider in scope-it is
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
called the fiscal arrangements legislation and covers other areas the Minister referred to, that is post-secondary education, in fact the established programs funding program.
Madam Speaker, the way this Government has been moving for two or three years on EPF and the way it is now tampering with the equalization formula, I have no choice but to sound the alarm and tell the Minister of State (Finance), so that he may convey the message to his colleagues, that in so doing the Conservative Government no only transfers its deficits to the provinces by way of the cuts made in established programs funding, but that provinces will be losing $8 billion by 1990 because of the change that was made to equalization payments for established programs. Yes, $8 billion-$2 in Quebec, nearly $2 billion in Ontario.
Certainly this shortfall in transfer payments will force provinces either to increase their deficits, to increase their taxes or to lower the level of their services.
And knowing the importance to Canadians of post-secondary education, knowing the importance of post-secondary education-research in our universities is one of the key elements of this nation's economic development-I say to this Government that they are making a big mistake while failing to solve any problem, because the deficit that is lowered at the federal level has to be shifted to the provincial legislators and Ministers of Finance, which means to taxpayers in each and every province. And the ability of the provinces to raise taxes in order to maintain the high level of post-secondary education, their ability to raise taxes to fund their health and hospital care programs, because they vary widely from one province to the other, my view is that little by little they are destroying or still reducing to a significant degree that chance for equal opportunities that Canadians hope they will be able to maintain from sea to sea.
Madam Speaker, the amended equalization formula features major changes, and one of the things dropped from the existing legislation is the interim payments which guaranteed the growth of equalization funding in several provinces. This provision will be eliminated. It had been offset by $260 million in 1985-86, but in the long run all provinces will be losers because the Government has decided to do away with these interim payments which had been made over the first three years of the fiscal arrangement program ending March 31, 1987.
Madam Speaker, even if we were looking only at the postsecondary education financing programs, the health care and hospitalization programs, and now the equalization formula, we would be quite justified to make lengthy interventions to show the incoherence of this Government and its negligence with respect to the development of our various regions. But on top of that we must add cutbacks in the growth rate of federal Government payments to fund established programs such as health care, hospitalization and post-secondary education. Then of course we cannot ignore this Government's approach to regional development generally.

March 19, 1987
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
In fact, the Government seems to be completely out of touch with the regions of Canada. Let us take a look at the situation. The unemployment rate in Newfoundland at the height of the 1982 recession was 16.8 per cent. In January, 1987, that unemployment rate was 19.2 per cent. You can see, Madam Speaker, that it was higher in January, 1987 than it was at the height of the recession of 1982, a recession that affected the whole western world.
If we take the statistics for February, 1987, the rate of unemployment in Newfoundland at 18.4 per cent is again higher than it was in the 1982 recession. The situation is the same for Prince Edward Island, which is now suffering an unemployment rate of 14.5 per cent compared to 12.9 per cent in 1982. And what about Nova Scotia? It is the same situation. The unemployment rate was 14.6 per cent in February, 1987, while it was 13.2 per cent in 1982. What about the unemployment rate in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia? In February, 1987, the unemployment rates in those provinces were higher than they were in the 1982 recession. Canadians living in St. John's, Charlottetown, Halifax, Quebec City, Calgary and Vancouver know that Canada's regions are experiencing a recession today that is as bad as the one that we and the world faced in 1982.
The Minister told us in his Budget Speech that everything was perfect. It seemed to me that what the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) told us today was along the same lines. It is imperative that the Government address in a much more serious manner the problem facing our regions, things such as the plight of our hard-pressed farmers, fishermen, sawmill workers and those in the energy sector. We Liberals believe in equality of opportunity no matter where one might live in this great land. We believe that Canada is only as strong as its most disadvantaged region, and we believe that Canadians expect the Government to do much more.
Let me examine the disastrous record of the Government in the crucial area of regional development. Since the Conservatives took over as government, they have cut the regional development envelope by almost $3 billion, or by 20 per cent. We see the effect of that on the rate of unemployment. The Government should reverse its policies and fight for the principle of equality of opportunity in each region. This morning, Madam Speaker, we learned that in New Glasgow, Nova Scotia, over 1,000 workers are going to lose their jobs, and the Government is doing nothing except cutting the regional development envelope.
I ask the Government to change its policies, not only to revise the decision made in terms of fiscal arrangements but also to revise its attitude and thinking concerning Canada's regions. It is not the Canadian way to let our regions suffer such high rates of unemployment. I think our history shows that the opposite is true and that Canadians are prepared to support the different regions.

Madam Speaker, if we were to speak more directly to the measure under consideration, Bill C-44, we could analyze some of the more technical aspects. We have seen that the Government has decided to make some technical changes in the equalization formula. I have nothing against that, believing as I do that the law must reflect the new requirements. Still, they chose not to maintain the guaranteed interim payments in the equalization formula. You may remember that in 1982 the previous administration had altered the equalization formula to base payments on the average revenues of five provinces. The main reason for this was that natural gas and petroleum prices had soared to levels such that under the existing equalization formula the federal Government would have had to make equalization payments to Ontario, Canada's richest province. This would have been ludicrous and the Central Government was forced to amend the equalization formula to establish the base on the average for five provinces, Quebec, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia. And because of these changes, the Provincial Ministers of Finance and the Minister of Finance of Canada had a long discussion to know what would be the advantages of the new formula compared to the old one. The provinces were saying that they were going to loose some equalization payments. The Federal Government maintained the opposite. And to solve the problem, the Federal Government granted the provinces transitional guarantee payments to assure them that the equalization payments under the new formula would be as significant and would grow at the same pace as under the old one. These payments had been guaranteed for three years. Meanwhile, the Conservative Government which was now in office realized that the transitional payments had been not only significant but essential to maintain the balance in the formula but instead of making long term adjustments, gave something to most provinces one year, granted a couple of provinces a little more the following year, and then completely stopped the transitional payments. Not only they did that, but they also blamed it on the previous Government, while the very purpose of the transitional payments was to guarantee payments to the provinces under the equalization formula. The Conservative Government blamed the Liberals, but did nothing to rectify the situation and maintained the transitional payments in the same spirit in which they had been introduced early in 1981-82 when these agreements had been renegociat-ed.
Madam Speaker, this is the Gospel truth, and I could provide figures for several provinces. The Minister of State (Finance) nods his disagreement. I am prepared to debate the matter with him to prove him wrong. The legislation obviously provided for transitional payments since there is an amendment in Bill C-44 to abolish them.
Generally speaking, Madam Speaker, transitional payments have helped most provinces. As far as Quebec is concerned, the situation as shown by the Conservative Government-and I am not refering here to Established Programs Financing but only to equalization payments-in 1984-1985, according to the
March 19, 1987

Minister's own figures, as published in Le Devoir on March 13, and it is reported to be the full reply of the Canadian Minister of Finance to his Quebec counterpart, Mr. Gerard D. Levesque, in 1984-1985, the last year a Liberal Government tabled a budget the province of Quebec received $3,074 billion in equalization payments. For 1986-1987, the province of Quebec will have received, including a transitional payment of $110,000, altogether $2.68 billion. Which means that in 19861987, compared to two years before, the province of Quebec will have lost as much as $394 million in equalization payments. When we compare fiscal year 1984-1985 to fiscal year 1987-1988, according to the figures released by the Minister of Finance, the province of Quebec will receive, three years later, $2,783 billion in equalization payments, when it received $3,074 billion in 1984-1985, a further loss of $291 million.
Madam Speaker, when I hear the Minister of State (Finance) and the Minister of Finance himself state that these payments are increasing, I wonder in relation to what.
How can it be said that payments are increasing when they dropped substantially between 1984-1985 and 1985-1986. It is as if we changed floors and started up the stairs again. We are certainly above the floor below, but we are still below the one we were on before. That is what the Conservative Government is doing for Quebec, and the same is true for most provinces receiving equalization payments.
In an attempt to correct the situation, here is what the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had to say:
When the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) made a ministerial statement in the House on March 11, he said that because of the effect of the mid-census, the federal Government would have to recuperate from the provinces certain amounts of money that had been over-paid. He said that those over-payments would be forgiven, and that was nice. That was a positive answer. The Minister of Finance said the same thing the Liberal Government said in 1982, but with a small exception.
When I received the ministerial statement on March 11, I read it very rapidly because I had to react to it within the next hour. I noticed a sentence that said that the amount due to the federal Government as a result of the census would be forgiven to the extent that it exceeds future increases in equalization entitlements. That means that the technical changes in Bill C-44 which favour some provinces will be counterbalanced by the recuperation of the over-payment that was made because of the census. If a province was bound to receive $30 million as a result of technical improvements, it may lose that $30 million through the readjustment due to the mid-census. Finally, the federal Government will be left with probably $300 million more in its pocket. That is unbelievable.
The Government is giving with one hand and taking back immediately with the other while telling the Canadian
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
provinces that it has been very generous, as the Minister of State for Finance said a few moments ago. I think that is unacceptable and I want to say to the Government that we have seen through its actions. It is giving with the right hand and taking back with the left. The net result is that many of the provinces will lose some of the advantages they were bound to receive under Bill C-44.
The Premier of Newfoundland issued a press release stating his opposition to this. The press release indicates that the Premier was disappointed with one aspect of the announcement whereby the federal Government will not pay to the Province of Newfoundland any future increases to equalization that might arise from revised estimates of equalization for 1985-86 and 1986-87. Any such increases that might have occurred up to the $35 million now being forgiven will now be withheld by the federal Government. That is exactly what I said. This federal Government will give with the right hand and take back with the left.
The Province of Quebec, the Province of Newfoundland and probably all the maritime provinces will lose. They were bound to receive a little more through the technical changes, but they will lose that because of the way the federal Government will readjust the figures as a result of the mid-census that changed the valuation of populations in each of the Canadian provinces.

Madam Speaker, some parts of Bill C-44 are rather surprising. The Minister of Finance had stated on various radio and television programs over the past months that under the equalization formula payments to provinces would increase by $175 million.

In November, 1986, the Minister of Finance said that he would offer $175 million a year in enhancement, or almost $1 billion over the next five years. On television on December 17, 1986, he said that he believed that an augmentation of $175 million a year or close to $1 billion over a five-year period would be a very major increase in the program. He said that very clearly. It seems to me that Dalton Camp's strategy is obvious. Make all sorts of promises, repeat the promises but do not deliver the goods. After a while, people are inclined to believe them. If one lies long enough, people will believe the lie.
The Minister of Finance said to Canadians on two occasions that the $175 million under the technical changes will be paid to the provinces every year. After reading Bill C-44, we realize that the $175 million is to be spread out over a two-year period. The provinces will have to cover the difference with their own taxes or will have to cut services. The small Provinces of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia as well as Quebec will have difficulty balancing their budgets because of the decision made by the Government not only on equalization payments but also on the Established Programs Financing.

March 19, 1987
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements [Translation]
Madam Speaker, I shall now return to Quebec and to the letter which was made public by the minister of Finance, Mr. Gerard D. Levesque, and to which the minister of Finance of Canada had responded through the newspapers. I would like to read an excerpt dealing with the technical changes which were made with regard to property tax. Why is it that the Federal Government has decided to establish the tax base using the reports of a real estate brokerage firm, namely Royal Lepage, rather than the standardized assessment rolls of certain provinces such as Quebec? I wonder why they did that. Flere is what the Quebec minister of Finance, Mr. Gerard D. Levesque, has to say on the matter: "The most important technical changes, those dealing with property taxes, are for the most part arbitrary and have nothing to do with the reality of Quebec. In view of the many criticisms by Quebec about the methodology applied by your services and the data sources used, I have serious doubts about the usefulness of the consultation process which has led to such results."
Madam Speaker, in his presentation, the Minister of State for Finance spoke about consultation. It is all very well to consult and to hold meetings, but if it is only to be able to tell the House that there have been consultations when a Bill is introduced, how useful can it really be? However, if the Government used consultations to try to understand the needs of the various provinces and propose solutions based on real facts, that would be another matter. Usually, the Quebec Minister of Finance is a man who thinks before he speaks. Mr. Gerard D. Levesque is not a man to cry wolf. He has a long parliamentary experience and that is not his style. His predecessor used to make flamboyant statements. However, Mr. Levesque seldom speaks only to create a sensation, and since he says that he has serious doubts about the usefulness of the consultation process, I must also wonder why the Minister of State for Finance felt it proper to suggest that Bill C-44 was the result of a provincial consensus when such is not the case.
Madam Speaker, I have a few more points to make before concluding. When the Budget was brought down on February 18, the Minister of Finance refused to table revenue projections for the next few years. He said that he could not do so because of the impact of the tax reform. He seemed to be saying that, since there might be a tax reform, he could not make any projections. As for me, I believe that his reasons were quite different. He did not want to show the impact of the tax increases brought about by his 1985, 1986 and 1987 Budgets, and the impact of these tax increases on Canadians would have been plain as a pilsestaff. However, if we accept the explanations of the Minister about why he cannot give revenue projections to the Members of this House who have to make decisions on the financial administration of this country, how can the Government then propose that Bill C-44 apply for a five-year period, since equalization payments are based on the tax performance in the provinces, which is equalized to the average of five provinces, and since we all know or presume that the tax reform will mean major changes to the tax base? For this reason, when we reach the clause by clause stage, we
shall be proposing amendments to limit the period of application of this Bill, at least as concerns the equalization payments, and set a limit of perhaps of one or two years so that the House can review the impact of the tax reform on the Bill.
What will be the objectives of the tax reform according to what the Minister of Finance said in 1986? In a statement to the press, the Minister of Finance stated that the Canadian tax reform would follow the American model, the purpose being to extend the base, lower the rates and transfer some of the burden from personal income tax to corporate taxes, or, in other words, to bring us back to the situation before 1984, when the Government transferred a very heavy burden to individual taxpayers. However, this change will have a definite impact throughout Canada, but not to the same extent everywhere. As a consequence, there could be changes, even deep changes it seems to me, in the equalization payments especially to provinces with the weakest industrial and corporate base. Since the Government is seeking to get a larger part of its tax revenue from corporations, it is clear that the less industrialized provinces, the ones with less corporate profits to tax, will be affected. The Minister of State for Finance and the Minister of Finance should limit the impact of the Bill on equalization payments, maybe until 1990, in order to give the House enough time to study the situation further.
I also mentioned earlier the technical changes which are to be implemented over a two year period. Madam Speaker, I can inform right away the Minister of State for Finance that we intend to propose, during the clause by clause study of the Bill, an amendment which would ensure that the commitment the Minister of Finance made on national television on December 17, 1986, and also to the Globe and Mail on November 1st, 1986, is indeed fulfilled. The Minister committed himself in front of Canadians and this should be reflected in the Bill. We will move an amendment to clause 3 to have the $175 million paid immediately, instead of being spread over two years, especially given the fact that, due to the way it used the 1986 census, the federal Government will have a net gain. It would be appropriate that it be passed on to the provinces.
Madam Speaker, this Bill will-it is obviously our role to point out its shortcomings, and I must say that my party, when in government, encouraged this approach in Canada. Studies made by the Canada Economic Council showed that those payments served a useful purpose in the Canadian economy. Therefore, we are not only very favourable but we will fight hard against any attempt by the Conservatives to eliminate equalization payments. However, even though we are committed to and agree on this formula, we do not agree with the Bill as introduced because it does not meet the commitments made by the Minister in November and December 1986 as regards additional payments of $175 millions; because in this legislation, all readjustments that are the result of the new census will only benefit the Government of Canada; because under the proposed payment formula, they give with one hand and take back with the other. Therefore, the Official Opposition, as it disagrees with those aspects of the legislation, will vote
March 19, 1987

against it for all these reasons, and if the Government agrees to our amendments in committee, we will be pleased to support it at third reading.


Mr. Attewell:: Point of order, Madam Speaker. I believe the Elon. Member twice used the word "lie". He said that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had lied. My understanding is that that is unparliamentary language. If he did indeed say that, I would ask that you rule on it.


Raymond Garneau: Madam Speaker, if I had expressed myself in my mother tongue, perhaps I would have used more parliamentary words, and I think he will admit that I must have been carried away when I said that. I wish to withdraw those words respecfully, even though that it what it looked like when reading newspaper clippings and the transcript of what the Minister said on television.


Bill Attewell: Madam Speaker, to clarify the situation, if the word was used, and I believe it was, it was said in English.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I believe the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) has said to the House that if he had inadvertently used the word, he did apologize for it and that it went over and above what his real thoughts were. I think we should leave it at that.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, it is with both pleasure and regret that I speak at this time. It is a pleasure because I feel very strongly about the matter of equalization payments. It is not only important to my own Province of Manitoba but very important to the majority of provinces across the country.
This matter is dealt with in our Constitution. Section 36(2) calls upon the Government of Canada to ensure that provincial Governments have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of service at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. We recognize in our Constitution the importance of equalization payments. Unfortunately, we are in a situation where, whether it be that Government or the Government which preceded it, those equalization payments have been treated as a financial shell game. Every time there is a change in the formula, the provinces say they are getting less money than they would have under the previous formula. The federal Government says no, that is not true. A cut-back is not a cutback. We are giving you more money than you are getting this year and that is all you should be concerned about. You should not be concerned about the fact there were formulas and agreements between the federal and provincial Governments which would have given you more money had they been allowed to continue. Instead, whether it was the Liberal Minister of Finance, Allan MacEachen, or the current Minister of Finance, formulas have been changed. The net
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
result each time has been that provincial Governments are not getting as much money as they would have, had those changes not taken place.
I am not saying that the old federal-provincial agreements were perfect, because they obviously had problems. However, neither the previous Liberal Government nor the present Conservative Government have been able to agree with the provinces about how Established Programs Financing and equalization will be treated. It is regrettable that they have not been able to come to grips with this very important matter. One of the reasons that Newfoundland and other provinces came together so long ago was the understanding that all Canadians would be provided the very basic services they required. Yet that is not happening.
Let me give an example of the problems in education, a matter about which I am very concerned as a teacher. I will use figures from 1983 to show the impact of the present arrangements. Newfoundland school boards spent $2,867 per year per student. That represented 7.2 per cent of the provincial Gross Domestic Product. That is a very high percentage, but not much money. The situation in Manitoba was somewhat better. It spent $3,742 per student, almost 30 per cent more than the Province of Newfoundland. Furthermore, it was only costing the Province of Manitoba 4.8 per cent of its Gross Domestic Product. Ontario could spend even more, and yet the percentage of its Gross Domestic Product was less.
The point is that the poorer provinces of this country were spending less per student for primary and early secondary education, yet the amount represented a much higher percentage of the total money available in those provinces. The situation has not improved since 1983, and if the formula before us now passes the same disparity will not only continue but, according to the Premier of Newfoundland, will actually increase. It is unfortunate because we have not come to grips with the situation in the last ten years.
In the early 1980s a parliamentary task force with representatives from all three Parties travelled across the country to consult the provinces and groups concerned about education, health care services and the level of those services in every province of the country. The committee returned and presented an excellent report to the House of Commons, but the Government of the day basically ignored those recommendations. In 1982, the Government came down with the five-province formula and created the problems we are facing now. Since then the situation has become worse instead of better.
The November 1985 Budget proposed a change in the formula for Established Programs Financing, the money that is used for medicare and post-secondary education. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) stated in that Budget that he expected to change the formula in such a way that he would save $2 billion a year until 1990, which meant that large amounts of money would not be going to medicare and postsecondary education. Although he said this measure would be

March 19, 1987
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
phased in, the budget papers that were tabled at that time made no mention of any change for the fiscal year 1986-87. Therefore, while the provinces, the universities, doctors and nurses were upset that this money would be lost in the future, they had no reason to believe that it would happen in 1986 and 1987. They thought they had time to convince the Minister of Finance, the Minister of National Elealth and Welfare (Mr. Epp), and the Secretary of State (Mr. Crombie) to persuade the Government that a $2 billion per year cut by the year 1990-$6.9 billion over a five-year period-was insane. That was not to be.
Late one evening, toward the end of the Finance Ministers' summer meeting in which they talked about a number of concerns, the Minister of Finance commented that in 1986 and 1987 the provinces would not receive the $400 million they had anticipated.
Fie said that the money for post-secondary education and health care services provided for by the law would be taken away. This represented another kick from the Minister of Finance when the provinces' ability to provide services as a result of the November Budget was already diminished. The Minister took that money sooner than he should have been allowed had the current provisions been allowed to expire on March 31, 1987.
When that legislation was brought before the House of Commons we were told not to be concerned. The Government indicated that it would remove $2 billion from Established Programs Financing by the fiscal year 1990-91, starting with $400 million and escalating it on an ongoing basis. We were told told not to be concerned that the old formula was changing because the provinces would still receive a little more money each year, which would cover the cost of inflation. However, the federal Government ignored the fact that the cost of hospitalization, medicare services, and the cost of education was increasing at a greater rate than inflation. That increase is understandable because more services can be provided now than was the case ten years ago. Furthermore, we have an aging population that needs, wants, and deserves proper medical services. Therefore, as a result of an aging population and new technology and new drugs, medical costs were increasing at approximately 9 per cent or 10 per cent. Obviously, the change in the Established Programs Financing made it harder for the provinces to provide adequate medicare services.
It is somewhat ironic that a New Democrat would quote the Canadian Medical Association, but it predicted to the committee of the House studying this legislation that if the cut-back in the funding formula on Established Programs Financing was allowed, a two-tier medical service in this country would result. The richer provinces would provide one service while the less wealthy provinces would provide a lesser service. The Canadian Medical Association recognized what would happen.
The Government has given us many assurances, including an assurance by the Minister of National Health and Welfare
who spoke in St. John's and explained that there are no problems. He said the difficulties would be resolved once the Government has had discussions with the provinces about equalization. I refer the House to comments made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare that appear in The Evening Telegram on Tuesday, June 17, 1986. I will not quote the Minister but he said, in effect: "Do not worry, we will look after it". June 17, 1986, was less than a year ago. So the provinces do not like the legislation being passed by the House of Commons. They feel betrayed by the federal Government and they have a right to feel betrayed.
When the Conservatives were in opposition and when the Hon. Allan MacEachen brought down his Budgets and his legislation on this very matter, the present Ministers of Finance, National Health and Welfare, Communications and other Ministers, each rose in this House and said how terrible it was what the Government was doing to the provinces. They said what it was doing was creating a cut-back in very essential services. They said: "We would not do that". But lo and behold, 1984 comes and goes, Members switch sides of the House, we have new Ministers, and the Ministers I just mentioned are now the ones responsible for instituting a further set of cuts. They do not call them "cuts" any longer, it is a gradual increase, but it is not the increase which should have taken place.
After June of 1986, the provinces took the word of the Minister of National Health and Welfare and had every reason to believe there was going to be an equalization formula put in place which would help the poorer provinces to be compensated for the fact they were not receiving as much money for EPF as they would have, had the Established Programs Financing legislation been allowed to continue under the old formula. But what happened is yet another round of meetings with Ministers of Finance and other Ministers from the provincial Governments and the federal Government getting getting together and not being able to agree on what was happening. It is ironic that we in this House got into a great debate, and we almost came to it again today, about what the federal Minister of Finance promised to the provincial Governments.
I quote again what the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) said in this House, that the Minister of Finance on the CBC National on December 17, 1986, said he believes that an augmentation of $175 million in a year, close to $5 million in a five-year period, is a very major increase in that program. He said they were not able to get a consensus so they will go back to the drawing-boards and look at some proposals, but the parameters are still there. He said the provinces would be getting $175 million additionally in a one-year period. The provinces did not think that was enough. After losing $400 million in one year as a result of changes to the EPF legislation, $175 million more in equalization did not look that good, so we had the provincial Ministers of Finance, after consulting with provincial Ministers of Health and other
March 19, 1987

provincial Ministers concerned, coming back to our federal Minister of Finance and saying it is not enough, and the federal Minister of Finance, in his statement on CBC obviously was referring to that. What happens then? Our federal Conservative Minister of Finance comes back, talks to his cabinet buddies, and then goes back to the provinces and tells them it is not $175 million in one year, it is $175 million over two years.
As you know, Madam Speaker, we came into the House of Commons brandishing the words of the Minister of Finance. He said he did not lie and we have to take his word for that. We can quote his words from the CBC. We can show that the amount was reduced. He says he did not promise it and we will take his word, but how would you feel, Madam Speaker, if you were negotiating for someone and were told there was $175 million on the table and at the next meeting, after doing your homework and looking for ways to improve the situation, you were told it is not over one year, it is over two years? It is called bargaining in bad faith. Provincial Ministers right across this land should be almost afraid to meet with our federal Minister of Finance because each and every time they meet, there is some kind of shell game perpetrated on the provinces. First, they are not losing the EPF money in 198687. Then they are. TThen we are told equalization is going to make up for any cut-backs in EPF. Then the offer of $175 million a year is obviously not enough to make up for the money which is going to be lost through EPF in one year alone. The $5 billion the Minister of Finance promised over five years will not make up for the $6.8 billion which was going to be taken away from the provinces as a result of changes in the EPF legislation. Then we find out that the $175 million does not even exist as an offer from the federal Government. It is no wonder we are no better off now in terms of federal-provincial relations than we were in the early 1980s.
It is ironic that Conservative Ministers from Nova Scotia, and Conservative Ministers and a Conservative Premier from Newfoundland, are tackling the federal Government and screaming on an almost daily basis. It is not surprising that from time to time even the Premier of Alberta expresses some sort of exasperation, and "exasperation" is probably too polite a word but I do not want to use anything unparliamentary.
The truth is that provincial Ministers really do not believe they are being listened to. Provincial Premiers feel it is frustrating to come to Ottawa. I am almost tempted to use a quote from Manitoba, but I suspect some people would say that is just the New Democratic Government in Manitoba and it is partisan. Being in Ontario right now, perhaps I should use a quote from the Liberal Government of this province, but someone would say that that is just being partisan also. I cannot use a Prince Edward Island quote because there is a Liberal Government there. A few more years of Tory rule in Ottawa and we are going to have a whole lot of New Democratic Governments across this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Don't hold your breath.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements


Rodney Edward Murphy: I will quote one of the friends of the people heckling on the other side of the Chamber. Premier Peckford said:
When you talk about a new era of federal-provincial relations, that meant not only consultation, it was meant that some of the legitimate, rational things that were being put forward could be accepted by this government and they have not been to date.
The Premier said:
-if Ottawa was going to make a meaningful contribution to the long-term stability of Newfoundland, equalization payments and established program funding would have to be based on need and ability to pay rather than rough population figures.
He went on to express his concern in much more vibrant language. He said: "We are being squeezed all the way to Sunday". He expressed concern that the situation in his province is such that it reflects the years of the 1930s. He said his province could not possibly maintain its level of services with the proposals coming back from the federal Minister of Finance.
It is a frustration which started on the East Coast but it is a frustration now being expressed in each and every part of this country. It is ironic, as the previous speaker said, that we have had the drastic changes to the Established Programs Financing. We are now in the process of changing the equalization formula for the next five years and we are doing so a month and two days after the federal Budget. We were told in that Budget we were going to have major tax reform and that the whole system of tax reform is going to be so fair and so important that it will drastically alter the way things are done in this country. If that is true, if the Government really believes that, if that is its real political agenda for fairness, then why did it rush through Parliament last year changes to the Established Program Financing? Why did members of the Government rush changes through in such a manner that when I suggested that representations of the national nurses' association should appear before the committee, the Chairman of the Finance Committee, the Hon. Member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), said: "What do nurses know about this? Why do we have to bring them here?" The Hon. Member did not want a great many witnesses to appear. We brought them anyway, and they certainly knew something about health care services. They certainly knew something about the need to have proper financing. Again, it is interesting that the nurses and doctors agreed to hear them speak, but that Conservative Members did not.
We are now considering Bill C-44. Yesterday morning I received a telephone call from the Minister of Finance and I do not think I am telling any state secrets. He said: "We have this legislation which is in front of us. Can we get through it in one day? I really have to have this legislation. I cannot write cheques to the provinces unless we pass this legislation quickly. How about dealing with all stages and all witnesses, hopefully before the end of March?" This is an important piece of legislation. If the federal Government thinks it is an important

March 19, 1987
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
piece of legislation it should not be playing the same games as were played by the previous Government. It has brought in legislation for the first day of debate on March 19 and has said that we have to get through it quickly. A legislative committee must study this matter. The provinces must come forward to explain how they feel about it.
We need to have other legitimate representatives of the population and groups from each province who are concerned about what equalization does for their province come forward. Obviously, the school boards and hospitals will be concerned. Obviously, those people who work for the federal and provincial Governments will be concerned.
There are those who have a strong feeling that we should have an adequate level of services, services that guarantee people in St. John's, Saint John, Moncton, Halifax, Charlottetown, Quebec City, Sherbrooke, and other centres right across the country the right to some guaranteed equal level of services. They should have the right to appear before the committee. It should not be done as it has been done in the past when five or six witnesses appear back-to-back. In the case of the patent drug legislation, witnesses were allowed to come in, speak for 40 minutes, and were then shoved out the revolving door as new witnesses came in.
Equalization legislation, legislation which the Government feels cannot be in place for just one year, legislation which the Government believes must be in place for the next five years, despite the fact it said it will bring in drastic tax reform in that period, is not something that should be rushed through. It is not something that affects a small community somewhere as a local by-law would. It is a major piece of legislation. I heard the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) a few minutes ago agree that it is major legislation. If it is, then why are we in such a rush? We certainly do not want to hold those cheques back from the provinces. But members of the Government should not try to blame the Opposition. They should not try to suggest to us that we are responsible for delaying necessary cheques from going to the provinces if we say that we want to have a thorough discussion of this matter and if we say that there must be adequate time for witnesses to come forward. As my Liberal colleague mentioned earlier, there must be a chance for us to try to prevent this legislation from being put in place for five years when, obviously, tax reform is on its way within the next year. Obviously, then, this legislation should be in place for but one year.
What the federal Government should be saying at this time also is that the EPF legislation, legislation which provides money for medicare, hospitalization and post-secondary education, should be amended so that it is only in place for one year instead being in place for the unforeseeable future.
I do not want to prevent other people from speaking. I know there is a concern that we allow Members representing Quebec and the prairie provinces time to speak. I know that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), now that he is representing a have-not province, for the first time in history-


Mr. Nystrom:: No, the second time.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Pardon me. I understand that it is not completely new, but it is startling to see Saskatchewan on this particular list. There are people who wish to explain the concerns of their provinces and their regions. It is important that they have the opportunity to do that in this debate.
We have no intention of keeping this matter in the House at second reading stage for a long time. However, we do insist on the right to have speakers from the various regions speak. After that has taken place, it will be important for the Government to ensure that Members on the legislative committee do not try to gag it. It is important that those Members do not try to limit the number of witnesses. It is important that those Members allow recognized groups to come here and talk about how this legislation can affect them. It is important legislation. There is nothing more important to our Canadian unity than to have a sense that each one of us will be treated fairly regardless of whether we come from Newfoundland, P.E.I., Quebec, Manitoba, B.C., or any other province. Right now that is not the case. I have quoted Premier Peckford. I could have quoted any number of provincial Premiers or Ministers. They do not feel that they are being treated fairly by the Government. They certainly have reasons for feeling that way. That is important.
What is more important is that we recognize the duty of Parliament to do all that we can to ensure that children growing up in all parts of this land have an adequate educational system, a system which is comparable right across the land. We also have to ensure that the provinces can produce and maintain adequate medical services. We also have to ensure that seniors feel that their provinces can maintain them in a decent way of life. We have to do so in such a way as not to bankrupt the poorer provinces. And we have to do it in such a way as not to bankrupt the taxpayers of the poorer provinces. That is what equalization is all about.
To get back to where I started in this speech, this is why, when we changed the Constitution with all-Party consent, and which was supported by nine, unfortunately not ten, of the provinces, we insisted there be a clause recognizing the role of equalization. It is important that we pass a law, not just recognizing equalization in principle and throwing a few more dollars into the pot, but that we actually put a system in place which will lead up to the meaning, the thoughts and beliefs behind that clause in our Constitution. It is easy to pass constitutional amendments. It is easy to put any words in place in the House of Commons. But it is much more important to provide the adequate means, the adequate financing, to make it happen.


Mr. George Minaker (Winnipeg-St. James):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak on the Bill that is before us and to support it. I had the opportunity to address this matter last year in the House of Commons. So my thoughts are already on the record regarding the supplementary equalization payments that came forward last year. I am
March 19, 1987

certain you will recall what I said at that time. However, I will refresh your memory. As a Member of Parliament I am truly a member of a national Government. I must first and foremost concern myself with the well-being of my constituents and ensure that they are being treated fairly in the national sense. For example, if there is an increase in federal spending in one area of the country, there should be a proportionate increase in spending in the other areas.
However, Canada is a very diverse country and some areas are doing much better than others. This is not a problem which happened to occur in 1984 when we took over the Government of Canada. It has been with us historically since we became a country. The Government is indeed trying to address the disproportionate share of wealth which exists in the country today.
The equalization formula is designed to take into account a number of factors which reflect a province's ability to provide an adequate level of services for the people who live there. It is commonly agreed that the equalization program is a cornerstone of our Canadian federalism and is not a program like any other. The Government recognizes that, and that is why we have increased payments this year. The Government gave my own province, Manitoba, $115 million extra in the last two years to ensure that it was financially able to provide the services needed. I might point out that the Government was not legally obligated to provide these increases but felt that it should in fairness. You will recall, Madam Speaker, that your own Province of Quebec received a sizeable supplementary payment as well. I would like to reiterate that Manitoba was treated fairly.
I would now like to comment on the net forgiveness of an over-payment which occurred in the past years because of the census estimation being incorrect. The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) said in his remarks that because of the net forgiveness clause in this Bill the provinces would not qualify for the technical changes. I hope the Hon. Member was not trying to mislead the House. However, he may have misunderstood the Bill, because that is not the case. The over-payment forgiveness relates to the last two years and does not affect future years in which the technical changes will take place. It is in fact included in the $5.6 billion which the provinces will receive in the coming year and the $5.9 billion estimated for the next year. I want to make that very clear to the House. I hope that the Hon. Member realizes that he may have misunderstood the Bill and was not trying to mislead the House on that point.
I believe that net forgiveness is a fair approach. The question of why they were not receiving complete forgiveness has been raised. The former Government created an accumulated deficit which restricts the ability of the Government to expand further equalization payments to the provinces. I would like to remind the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides and the House that in the 1985 Budget it was stated
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
that over the past three years the national debt grew 75 per cent and that in the same period the economy grew only 25 per cent. The present Government has taken a different approach to try to put a cap on the deficit and reduce it.
With regard to the statement of the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides that the Minister of Finance is the king of deficits, I want to remind him that it was the previous Liberal Government which accumulated the $200 billion deficit which now faces the provinces. Eighty cents of every dollar which we collect in personal income taxes goes to pay the interest on the debt. That is why the Government does not have the funds it would like to have in order to give the provinces more equalization payments.
I would like to remind the Hon. Members for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) and Laval-des-Rapides that the payments are increasing. The increase of $300 million is in addition to the net forgiveness accorded to the provinces. My own province is getting $15 million in additional moneys based on the rule that provinces benefit by estimations. All Governments have to estimate their budgets. When a census is taken, the estimations are corrected. The Opposition bases its claim of lack of increases on estimates which were found to be incorrect because the population did not grow as quickly as we thought it would. The Opposition is trying to use old estimates to support the claim that there are cuts when, in fact, there are increases. This year equalization payments will increase from $5.3 billion to $5.6 billion and to $5.9 billion in the following year.
The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides commented that the provinces will be losing $400 million in the major federal transfers. That is completely incorrect. I refer you to a table which was in the equalization document which indicates that of the total major federal transfers in 1986-87, EPF and Canada Assistance Plan will total $25,887 million. That will increase to $27,328 million, a total increase of $1.44 billion between 1986-87 and 1987-88. That is a definite increase of around 5 percentage points. There are additional federal transfers which are not included in those figures which will represent another $2.5 billion.
I want to put that on the record to ensure that the House is not left with the understanding that these payments are decreasing, because they are increasing considerably. We would naturally like to have these payments increased further if possible, but we must recognize the responsibilities of a federal Government. I hope the provincial Governments will recognize their responsibilities as well, because there is only one taxpayer. As the former Member of the House from Calgary, John Kushner, once said, there is only one taxpayer, you and me.
However, Governments do not have money. They raise their revenues from taxpayers. I believe the provinces should recognize their responsibilities. I hope I will have the opportunity to continue this debate after the luncheon adjournment.

March 19, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I would like to advise the Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) that he will have an additional 10 minutes for debate when the House resumes Government Orders, which will be followed by a 10-minute period for questions and comments.
It being 1 p.m., I do now leave the Chair until 2 p.m. this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, one of the
main reasons why Canadians have lost confidence in the Government is the inability of the Conservatives to keep the promises they made to the Canadian people.
Recently, the Canadian government staged a refugee immigration crisis and it tried to manipulate public opinion to make their situation even worse.
Immigrant refugees were used by the Conservatives for political reasons, like the debate on capital punishment. This kind of tactic is as irresponsible as their campaign promises.
The conservatives promised to give us a fair and equitable immigration policy, to introduce training programs to make immigration offices outside the country better informed, to help immigrants acquire a thorough knowledge of one of the official languages and to make Canadians more aware of our cultural mosaic.
Mr. Speaker, these actions and promises are an insult to the intelligence of Canadians, and I regret the Government having taken this position.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Mrs. Ida Milgrom, the 78 year old mother of Anatoly Shcharansky, visited Ottawa to urge politicians to increase the pressure on the U.S.S.R. to let people leave that country. Mrs.
Milgrom scoffed at Gorbachev's new policy of openness, or glasnost in Russian, because thousands of Jews have been waiting years to obtain their exit visas.
She asked for our specific help to free Ida Nudel, a longtime refusnik whose health is failing due to years of frustration and persecution.
Mrs. Milgrom also highlighted the struggle of refusniks Lev and Inna Elbert who have been waiting 11 years for exit visas and who finally, out of despair and frustration, began a hunger strike on March 5.
Today we welcome over 100 Jewish students from across Canada from Network Canada and their President, Michael Zeldman. They are in the nation's capital to visit over 40 Members of Parliament to stress the desperate plight of thousands of refusniks and prisoners of conscience in the U.S.S.R.
Regrettably, at this point in time glasnost remains a misleading, deceitful word, totally empty of substance and commitment.



NEW DEMOCRATIC PARTY'S POLICY

Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian youth still await the Government's youth program, but they have not had to wait for New Democrats whose youth task force recommendations, formulated largely by youth, became our policy last weekend.
The Minister of State for Youth (Mr. Charest) consumes himself in defensiveness over the not so Hot 100. He is now joined by the Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Schellenberg). This is the handbook which claims to list 100 programs, services, and resources financed by the feds for youth.
All the hot and angry letters to me from the Minister or statements in the House will not change the fact that too many of the programs listed in the booklet, in an effort to make the Government look good, are neither financed by the feds nor designed specifically for youth.
The Hon. Member for Nanaimo-Alberni was right about one thing-New Democrats support Canadian culture to which honesty, especially for youth, is fundamental.
The Government promised a youth policy, and promised and promised and promised, and a broken promise is a form of dishonesty. If the Government wants something really hot, we have something to warm even a hard Tory heart-the New Democratic Party youth policy.
March 19, 1987

NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD	UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE



PUBLICS PERCEPTION OF BOARD'S DECISIONS

Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, less than a month ago Canadians were shocked to learn that a man convicted of two rape-murders and an attempted rape-murder had been released on an unescorted day pass by the National Parole Board.
Last week we were shocked even more to learn that the police were placing bodyguards around a judge, a crown attorney, and the witnesses to an attempted murder, because the National Parole Board had released the man convicted of that crime after he served only a third of his sentence.
Worse yet, the Chairman of the National Parole Board admitted last week that his board does not have any clear criteria to use when granting a parole. No wonder, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians see the National Parole Board's decisions as arbitrary, inconsistent, and often downright reckless. No wonder the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Ontario admit that Canadians have lost confidence in the justice system. The parole system must be changed, and it must be changed now.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, 35,000 early retirees in Canada, including 13,000 in Quebec, won another victory yesterday. After waiting for a year and two months, the government has finally decided to admit these people were right. However, there is some thing I think the government should know. I spoke to the people in charge of ARSAC in Quebec, Mr. Cloutier and Mrs. Jeanne Lalanne. Monday there will be a meeting in Montreal and Thursday one in Quebec City, and the people of ARSAC, our early retirees, will persevere until they have their unemployment insurance benefits cheque in their pocket.
Furthermore, we are going to decide whether we will continue this action to prevent future Government discrimination again retirees so there will not be two classes of workers in Canada.



EARLY RETIREES' RIGHT TO BENEFITS

Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) has just acknowledged that the early retirees of 1985 had a legitimate grievance. I am proud of this decision, all the more so because from day one I have been speaking on behalf of the Abitibi early retirees. In a press release dated May 20, 1986,1 stated:
Given the commitments made by their employers and the recommendations of the federal Government, justice will prevail for the Abitibi early retirees of 1985. Those who opted for retirement have since had their benefits reduced or cut off.
Since the state has chosen not to honour its contract with them, they can appeal this decision.
Mr. Speaker, I was elected to defend the interests of the people, and this is not the first time I fight for the well-being of elderly people in Abitibi. I appreciate the commendable job done by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Like an excellent CEGEP teacher, he has corrected the Government's essay.



FORESTRY


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, on March 10 the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew) said:
I'm particularly aware of our country's need for well educated foresters who will contribute invaluably to the continued prosperity of our number one industry.
If the Minister truly wants to see more professional foresters in Canada, he should act now to provide jobs for those foresters who are already trained.
A study of recent forestry graduates from UBC shows how Canada wastes the training and talents of these young people. Of 290 graduates between 1983 and 1986, only 141, or 48.6 per cent, have been able to find jobs as forestry professionals. Twenty-one per cent are still unemployed.
Three years ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised to create a separate Department of Forestry. He has not kept that promise. Both our forests and our foresters suffer from this failure to keep his word.



IMMIGRATION

[Stage Direction]
March 19, 1987

Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to draw attention to an issue of great importance to all Canadians. There is a group of concerned citizens in British Columbia who, under the leadership and motivation of Mrs. Christine Mellin, are giving tirelessly of their time and energy to ensure that the safety of all Canadians is maintained. Their cause is the immediate deportation of individuals who have landed immigrant status in Canada and who have been convicted of criminal activities.
I am proud of these people's selfless efforts on behalf of all Canadians and I would like to reassure them that we, as a Government, recognize the serious nature of this issue. Given the excellent work of the Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. Weiner) in protecting the rights of Canadians through recent changes to immigration policies, I am sure that he will give serious attention to the concerns of those I am representing here today. Evidence of their commitment is demonstrated by the more than 4,000 signatures on this petition that I hold in my hand.



AGRICULTURE


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, Canada's agricultural crisis grows worse every day. The total farm debt in Canada in 1985 amounted to $21.6 billion. One year later, at the end of 1986, it had climbed to $22.5 billion and is still rising. In Ontario, Canada's most prosperous province, my province, the farm debt stands at $5.2 billion, Mr. Speaker. It is interesting to note that farmers owe ever more to the Farm Credit Corporation and that 22.2 per cent of payments are late. Mr. Speaker, I might point out that in 1982, the worst recession year, 410 farm bankruptcies were recorded in Canada. In 1986, with a Conservative Government which claims to have done so much for the agricultural community, the number of farm bankruptcies went up to 440. The situation is intolerable and I insist that the Conservative Government come to the assistance of Canadian agricultural producers.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, the bank rate has plunged again. It has just been announced that it has dropped to a rate of 7.14 per cent. That is one reason the press can say that foreign investors just love Canada. It is a good place to do business again.
We must also be aware that the spread between the bank rate and the prime rate is now wider than it was last week. The challenge to the banks and lending institutions is to bring that prime rate down so it can benefit business people and consumers still more, and particularly credit card users.
The credit card rate is the same as it was when the prime rate was over 20 points. One must ask if the bank rate has to come down to nothing before credit card consumers will benefit.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the 85 Chileans barred from Canada by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) are trapped in Buenos Aires. They cannot come to Canada and dare not return to Chile. They report recognizing Chilean secret police menacing them on the streets of Buenos Aires. After exhausting their money and the church aid available, they have slept in a park for two nights and live on the streets. They are drinking the nonpotable water available there but are lacking money for food. Some of these people are children under the age of two.
The Canadian charge d'affaires is quoted by The Globe and Mail as saying: "If they've been sleeping in the streets, it's because they've chosen to do so". What a disgrace to Canada's foreign service. She sounds like a direct descendant of Marie "Let-Them-Eat-Cake" Antoinette. Ms. Herrera of the UNHCR sounds more realistic. She has said: "You only have to talk to them to know they are destroyed, that they are afraid to return". What is the Minister's problem with Chileans? Is none too many?
March 19, 1987



ACID RAIN


Gabriel Desjardins: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada and especially the Prime Minister have finally been successful in their efforts to convince the United States to join in the fight against acid rain. Yesterday, in Washington, the American President announced that his country would spend $5 billion to fight acid rain.
Mr. Speaker, over the past year our Government has often severely blamed the United States for their inaction in this matter and the announcement made yesterday in Washington is definitely a major step in the right direction. I feel it is important to remind the House that the commitment made yesterday by the American President is fully consistent with the main recommendation in the Lewis-Davis report made public in January 1986.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians can rest assured that the Prime Minister of Canada will strongly protect their interests in this matter to provide them with the quality of life they rightfully deserve.



TARIFFS


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I bring to the attention of the House and most particularly the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) a further effect of her so-called softwood lumber deal with the United States. Mr. Jack Lavallet, President of Kimberly-Clark Canada Limited, announced on Tuesday that the 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber has had a negative impact on sawmill profitability. Consequently, his company has announced a shut-down of the Longlac sawmill in northern Ontario effective May 15 this year. This will result in a total loss of over 100 jobs. It is further proof of how the Government bungled the entire softwood lumber issue with the United States administration.
The Government was tested and it has been found wanting, and tragically so. I call upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) immediately to take what steps they can to repair the damage done by their colleague, the Minister for International Trade.



IMPORTANCE OF TRADE TO ECONOMY OF NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear yesterday the comments of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) about the forestry sector of northern Ontario, especially after his Party spoke out against the Government's trade initiatives. That really showed how misinformed his Party is about the North. The facts are that seven out of 10 jobs in northern Ontario depend directly on trade. Some 200,000 people are employed in the mining sector and over 70,000 in the forestry sector. Canadian exports last year included over $19 billion worth of metals and $16 billion worth of wood and paper.
On average each $1 billion in exports leads to the creation of 15,000 jobs. A trade agreement with the U.S. will provide even more employment opportunities which are so important to our economy. The Conservative Government will meet the challenge of trade negotiations with the U.S. and further the vision of Canada. The Conservative Party has always been the Party of vision. It is our heritage and our obligation. Sir John A. Macdonald moulded it and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of today will enhance it.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about something which affects not only my riding but those right across the country, that is, the condition of native housing. For many years native people, especially treaty Indians, have suffered from a deplorable housing situation. We have not had for a number of years any special effort by any Government at the federal level to come to grips with the problem. This year's Budget and Estimates do not provide money to help solve the problem.
I find it deplorable to walk into native housing in this country and find holes in floors, broken-down ceilings, and doors that do not close. It is deplorable that the Government is not coming to grips with the problem. I call upon the Government to develop a national strategy for native housing and announce it soon. There should be a five or six-year program to make sure we get rid of the backlog. There is no way native students will receive adequate education or live in a healthy environment unless the Government commits itself to such a program.

March 19, 1987
Oral Questions HUMAN RIGHTS



YUGOSLAVIA-PLIGHT OF DOBROSLAV PARAGA

Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, Dobroslav Paraga is a young Yugoslavian who protested the human rights problem in that country. For that protest he was arrested and jailed for five years. When released he protested the torture inflicted on him by the state. As a result of that protest he was again arrested and prosecuted. It was only because of the excellent lawyer he had and because of ill health that the prosecution was temporarily stayed. I call on the Government of Yugoslavia to respect human rights as all Governments should respect human rights.



ROAD SAFETY


Marie Thérèse Rollande Killens: Mr. Speaker, again today I want to put on the record a letter 1 received from Dr. Acker, President of the Medical Society of Nova Scotia. The letter deals with the need for three point safety belts for rear seat passengers. The letter reads:
Congratulations and thank you for your comments to the House February 11, 1987 concerning the need for increased safety measures for rear seat passengers. Your observations about the added safety provided by three point safety belts are quite correct.
The Medical Society raised this question a year ago. We pointed to the concern, noted that a mere handful of imported cars use the three point harness and reminded government of its commitment to car safety. Regrettably, no action has been taken by any government in Canada.
We have come a long way in vehicle safety, and we urge government to take the next logical step. We already require seat belts in our cars, let's require that those seat belts be the most effective.
Again, thanks for bringing this important matter before the House. Hoping your remarks will lead to action-



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It is becoming evident that the Government's acid rain strategy has failed so miserably-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Caccia:: -that even getting President Reagan to live up to a year-old commitment is considered by the Prime Minister to be a very significant movement. We are now locked in a five-year research and demonstration program which will not benefit our dying lakes, forests, and eco-systems because there
is no commitment to cut acid rain entering Canada. As Michael Perley of the Canadian Coalition on Acid Rain put it, "clean coal technology isn't the solution to the problem . . . Emission reduction is the key".
My question is simply this. What will the Prime Minister be bargaining for at the next summit on Canada's behalf?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, what we will do at the summit is continue the results of yesterday which constitute a very significant step forward in the fight against acid rain. We will continue that. Surely anyone who cares about the environment and understands anything about the devastating impact of acid rain on the environment, and appreciates the total absence of activity in regard thereto over the last 20 years, will celebrate yesterday's events but recognize that we have a long way to go. It is a tough road, but we will stick with it and we will clean up the environment.


Charles L. Caccia: It seems quite clear that anything is good news to a Party that is ten points behind the third Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the essence of what happened yesterday is that the Prime Minister has given up his bargaining position with the President by accepting with open arms the President's position three weeks before the summit. He has given up his bargaining position. When will the Prime Minister muster enough courage to demand what Canadians are asking for, namely, acid rain cuts that are significant to Canada, with percentages, with target dates, and with emission reductions?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friend refers to polling data. I just remind him that when Prime Minister Turner called an election he was leading by 14 points in the Gallup Poll and, 53 days later, something strange happened.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Are you going to call one? Call it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Are you interested?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Axworthy:: Right now. Let's go!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I would do it, Mr. Speaker, but I am worried about their pensions.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An Hon. Member:: You don't qualify yet, Brian.


Mr. Speaker:: I remind the Right Hon. Prime Minister that the question was on acid rain.
March 19, 1987


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker I am sure it got lost in the translation. Obviously, our record in this area and others will be examined. I look forward to an examination of our record on the environment by Canadians who will contrast this field of acid rain with what took place in the years that preceded our swearing in. In particular, I suppose they will want to contrast that record with what I think you will admit is the really quite deplorable record of the Elon. Member who is posing the questions. He should be ashamed of himself.


Charles L. Caccia: I am afraid the Prime Minister got lost in research and demonstration rather than in substance.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. According to U.S. Representative Henry Wexman: "The Prime Minister is selling out the Canadian people and the Canadian environment". That is what he said yesterday. How can the Minister of the Environment stay in his job, calling for cuts in U.S. acid rain, when the Prime Minister agrees gleefully with President Reagan on more research and demonstration?


Hon. Tom McMillan (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Davenport keeps referring to the $5 billion program confirmed yesterday by the President as a research program. He knows better.


Charles L. Caccia: Read the Envoys' Report.


Thomas Michael McMillan: In fact, his statements to that effect are made no more true just through repetition.
I noticed in the The Ottawa Citizen today an article in which U.S. Energy Secretary John Herrington is quoted as saying that the program will be: "-tailored as much as possible to projects that demonstrate equipment which will reduce chemicals from existing coal-burning plants-". The program is not for research. It is not for basic and fundamental research. It is designed to reduce acid rain-causing emissions in the United States that do irreparable harm to the Canadian environment. I think the Hon. Member should keep that in mind.


GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: My question is also directed to the Prime Minister. He talks about celebrating yesterday. Well, nine million people living around the Great Lakes were not celebrating when a report was released which showed that the situation is actually getting worse rather than better with respect to water quality in the Great Lakes. Does the Prime Minister not agree with the suggestion of the Liberal Party that a super fund to clean up the Great Lakes is critical at this point in time so we can stop further deterioration in the quality of water in the Great Lakes?
Oral Questions


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member is not aware of the fact that I have made public statements on behalf of the Government of Canada very favourably predisposed to the idea of a super fund. In fact I have met with the Canadian Chemical Producers' Association a number of times following up on its indication to me and to the Government that for its part it would be eager to explore with us, with Ontario and with other jurisdictions, the possibility of a multi-party fund.
For our part, we are providing leadership in this area. We think-


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: But no money.


Thomas Michael McMillan: We think the polluters should pay the costs of damage to the environment. We are seeking from the chemical industry itself, which bears responsibility for much of the pollution, funds for that purpose.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Believe me, I have a file full of words from this particular Minister with respect to the Hamilton Harbour. I do not need any more of his words.


POLLUTION OF WINDERMERE BASIN IN HAMILTON HARBOUR
Sheila Maureen Copps: The Minister is so serious about the problem. When the IJC cited the Hamilton Harbour and, in particular, the Windermere Basin, as one of the most severe hot spots in the Great Lakes with PCB levels up to 68 times the acceptable level, why did the Minister, in his letter to me, refuse the request from the city, the region and the provincial Government, for a $1.25 million federal contribution to help clean up this mess? We want action. We want funds. We do not want more rhetoric.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member has such an aversion to rhetoric, I do not know why she makes a career out of it in this House.
That aside, I have met with the mayor of Hamilton, with the head of the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth, with the head of the Hamilton Harbour Commission and with the Minister of the Environment for Ontario, to explore ways in which the federal Government could join with those jurisdictions in a clean-up of the Windermere Basin. I recognize it as a very serious problem. I am taking it seriously. I am exploring every possible contribution the federal Government can make to that end.
I think it is incumbent upon the Hon. Member to recognize the very good work which the federal Government is doing in this area and which it has committed itself to doing in future.


UNITED STATES PRESIDENT'S ANNOUNCEMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question concerns the same subject. I will agree with the Minister that this Government has done something about acid rain and we give the Government credit for it, and I mean

March 19, 1987
Oral Questions
that. But what we are discussing today is not what this Government has done but what the United States has done.
Considering that fully half the acid rain which is destroying our lakes, waters, and forests comes from the United States, and considering that a year ago the President of the United States made a commitment not to reduce acid rain by one drop but to spend on demonstrator projects and research, not a penny for anything else, can the Prime Minister tell the country why he said yesterday that a simple reassertion of this promise to spend money by the President, not on reducing acid rain but on research, should be seen by our Prime Minister as a very significant step forward?.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, obviously our objective remains a treaty with the United States and targets for emission reductions. That is clearly what we are seeking to achieve.
I think my hon. friend will agree that when we were asked to take over this matter, nothing had been done. The previous Government walked away from it completely in 1982 saying that nothing could be done. By and large I think that an objective observer would indicate that is what we inherited. We began with a series of initiatives. Part of the culmination of these initiatives was realized yesterday by the statement of the President of the United States. First, he indicated that the full amount of the government share of the funding recommended by the Joint Envoys, $2.5 billion, will be secured for a demonstration of innovative control technology over a five-year period. He also set out the second step, the third step, and so on.
This represents a significant advance over the position adopted by the administration last year. It does not get us
yet-


John Edward Broadbent: It is the same.


Martin Brian Mulroney: No. I invite my hon. friend to read the statement carefully. There is a significant improvement in the position advanced by the United States.
I give my hon. friend this commitment. We shall not relent until such time as we have agreed with the United States on a program that will eliminate the locus of the problem emanating from the United States which is killing our environment.


PRIME MINISTER'S FORTHCOMING MEETING WITH UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 say to the Prime Minister that what the United States announced yesterday will not reduce one drop of acid rain falling on our forests, our lakes or our streams. What Canadians want from the United States is a commitment to reduce levels of acid rain.
In terms of negotiating with the United States, does the Prime Minister think it is the best diplomatic position for the
Government of Canada to announce today in the House, before he sits down with the President, that we should be celebrating what has already been announced, what he has now described as a very significant forward step by the President of the United States? Doesn't taking this position give our whole case away? Will President Reagan not come here and say: "Well, we will just shake hands with the Prime Minister and there will be an agreement on everything we will do", which is nothing?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think I indicated that yesterday, in response to a vitriolic attack by the Opposition on this accomplishment, if the Hon. Member is asking me whether I believe that throwing hand-grenades at the United States, or at any of our friends and allies, works, the answer is no. It did not work for the previous Government, and I do not think it will work for anybody. I believe that what clearly works is the setting out of an agreed upon position by the Government of Canada, fighting for it forcefully, and obtaining results-not perfect results but substantial movement forward-on cleaning up our mutual environment. That is exactly to what we are committed, and we are in the process of achieving it.


REQUEST THAT AMERICANS REDUCE ACID RAIN EMISSIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my last question for the Prime Minister is as follows: When he discusses this problem with President Reagan, will the Prime Minister insist that the Americans reduce the levels of acid rain they are producing and that are affecting this country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, absolutely, Mr. Speaker. But as the Leader of the New Democratic Party said himself, and I want to thank him for his comments, progress has been made on acid rain. He did not say the problem was solved, but he did acknowledge that the Government of Canada had made definite progress through its bilateral relations. I wanted to make this point, considering the entirely negative and destructive attitude taken by the Liberal Opposition, which sees bilateral relations with the United States as an excuse to shoot down our allies. I maintain that progress is not served by declarations of war. Progress is served by mature individuals who act according to a well organized and well thought out plan of action, and a government that is determined to pursue it.


DECAY OF MAPLES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, this is another question on the same subject, and it is directed to the Prime Minister. As the maple syrup season is about to begin, producers are extremely concerned about the extent of the damage to their maple trees. They have lost thousands of taps and feel that at this rate, the industry will be wiped out completely in four years' time. They do not share the Prime Minister's optimism. Could the Prime Minister inform the
March 19, 1987

Oral Questions


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
[Stage Direction]
House what he intends to do today, right now, to correct this serious problem that is affecting our maple trees?
Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I am puzzled by the question because my understanding is that yesterday the major spokespersons for the maple sugar industry, especially in Quebec, welcomed the initiative taken by President Reagan in Washington and made public statements to that effect. We recognize, as I think it is being increasingly recognized in other jurisdictions, that forestry is suffering among the worst effects from acid rain. In Quebec we are seeing maple sugar production plummet by as much as 50 per cent because of acid rain related emissions.
One of the reasons we are seeking an accord with the United States to slash acid rain causing emissions on both sides of the border is to help the very people whose cause the Hon. Member intended to champion in his question.


REPAYMENT OF $100 MILLION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Alain Tardif: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is also directed to the Prime Minister. They find most timid indeed the progress made with respect to this issue, if any. They currently estimate at $100 million the losses suffered by that industry. Does the Government intend at the next summit to present the American administration with the bill: $100 million, and does the Government intend to support that $100 million claim for losses to date?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member were truly fair on this question, and if the Liberal Party of which he is a Member were truly fair, he would recognize that over many years Canada has faced an enormous amount of opposition south of the border to progress on acid rain. We are making progress. That contrasts with the situation that prevailed in June of 1982 when the previous Government terminated all discussions with the Americans on acid rain out of sheer frustration at the lack of progress.
To the credit of the Prime Minister, he put the issue back on the agenda. He got acid rain back on the rails. We are making steady progress. There are no home runs, no grand slams, no royal flushes in Washington on acid rain. But we are making singles and doubles that will eventually put home runs on the board.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


RAIL FREIGHT CAR INDUSTRY
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The rail freight car industry in Canada has faced massive problems in recent years. Last year, National Steel Car in Hamilton saw its workforce fluctuate between 100 and 1,000 people. The latest incident is with today's announcement that Hawker Siddeley has put the Trenton car plant on the market because of lack of orders. What will the Government do to ensure that our rail car industry remains healthy?


Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I think we have already recognized the regional challenges and it is also our intention to meet them. Since September, 1984, the Government has been doing things in that province, in the Atlantic area-first, we signed energy agreements; second, we had new economic development agreements with the provinces, and also we intend to keep working at that.
But with respect to Hawker Siddeley, we are especially concerned with that company's plans to sell their interests. We intend to work in close co-operation with the company and the Province, Mr. Speaker, in order to find solutions which would allow the company to remain in operation.


HAWKER SIDDELEY PLANT AT TRENTON, N.S.
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question was asked of the former Member for Central Nova who said in the 1983 by-election campaign that Ottawa "should use its colossal procurement influence in the Department of Supply and Services and Canadian National Railway to guarantee that the Hawker Siddeley (Canada) Ltd. rail car plant at Trenton, Nova Scotia, gets its fair share of orders, and that other industries in that area benefit". What will the Prime Minister do to help the people of that area?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what the Government of Canada will do. It will work very closely with the province, with prospective purchasers, with Hawker Siddeley, with the Crown agencies, for example the CNR, and with all possible intervenants in this case to make absolutely certain that the Hawker Siddeley operation in Trenton continues to provide gainful and beneficial employment in an ongoing way for the people of Central Nova.

March 19, 1987
Oral Questions


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment and is with regard to the report of the International Joint Commission on the Great Lakes. For 30 years or more the pollution of Lake Ontario has threatened people living on both sides of that body, the use of beaches and, at times, the safe use of drinking water. The IJC report indicates that consumers may be part of the solution rather than part of the problem by becoming more conscious of what toxic chemicals are doing to our water.
What action is the Minister prepared to take to respond to the IJC's recommendation that a public consumer education program be undertaken to induce more and more of the public to use less and less toxic chemicals?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the question relates to one of 36 recommendations brought down by the International Joint Commission a few days ago. I am exploring with all of my relevant cabinet colleagues how we might respond to all of the recommendations as a package rather than to any individual ones separately-
In connection with education I can certainly tell the Hon. Member that I am very sympathetic to the position he expressed in his question. We have ourselves greatly highlighted that part of our total program over the past year through, for example, increased funding for Environment Week. With my cabinet colleagues, including the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I will be exploring how we can follow up even further.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and it, too, is with regard to the Trenton car works in Nova Scotia. The 2,000 laid-off employees of that particular company as well as the entire community of Trenton are very uncertain as to their future and anxious to have the federal Government exert some leadership at this most difficult time.
Will the Minister confirm that his Department knew of this pending sale or closure some weeks ago? Would he indicate to the House what discussions took place with the Premier of the Province of Nova Scotia? Would he also tell the House what actions he and his government colleagues intend to take in the
coming weeks to assist the workers and the community of Trenton?

Hon. Michel Cote (Minister of Regional Industrial
Expansion): First, Mr. Speaker, I must correct the Hon. Member's statement. Until now there has been no reference to any shutdown, but to a selling out. The company intends to sell its interests in Trenton, not to stop its operations. Second, on this Government's commitment, again we must meet regional challenges as I said. We have provided constant help and shown our interest in the Atlantic region's workers especially. We will still be doing this, while recognizing the area's problems and working with the company and the Province involved.


REQUEST FOR PROGRAM TO ASSIST COMMUNITY
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the same Minister. I hope that this commitment is not similar to the commitment the Government made to the workers in Moncton, New Brunswick. I would like to remind the Minister that it was the Prime Minister who led the people of Pictou County to believe that as a result of his by-election victory in 1983 incidents of this nature would not happen.
Will the Minister undertake to visit Trenton, Nova Scotia, meet with the affected workers, and implement a program of action to assist those 2,000 employees and the community of Trenton, thereby living up to the commitment, the promises and the undertakings that the Prime Minister made to those people?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to that question. First, the allusion to the Moncton situation is quite inaccurate. The Moncton situation went off the rails largely because unions refused to accept the compromise put forward by the federal Government, the Government of New Brunswick, and the people of Moncton. I think it is important to note that that, in large measure, is why the situation developed as it did in Moncton.
With regard to Trenton, there was no reference in any campaign at any time to incidents of this nature not happening. There was certainly an undertaking at that time by the Member of Parliament and the Government to do everything that we possibly could to be of assistance and keep alive a very vital and historic part of industrial Nova Scotia in the constituency of Cape Breton.
We have acted already. For example, right in my hon. friend's home area, in Sydney, we have been of tremendous assistance, along with the Government of Nova Scotia, to Sysco and the development of Cape Breton. We will do no less to help the people of Central Nova who depend very much on this traditional industry as a source of growth for their region.
March 19, 1987


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday afternoon the Minister came into the Elouse puffing, panting, and out of breath, circulating, at the last minute, a statement that he wanted to make later on.
[ Translation]
Can the Minister tell us why he was in such a hurry to make a statement in the House yesterday on pension income and severance pay when he knew the report of the Standing Committee would be tabled today? Why did he not wait for the suggestions of the Committee?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is simply because I was ready to make my statement yesterday.


PROVISION OF BENEFITS FOR EARLY RETIREES
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the same Minister. I would like to give the Minister a chance to save his neck and his skin, and the skin and necks of all the Tories on that side of the House. The committee tabled its report today. The Minister now knows that the committee, comprised of Members representing all sides of this House, with the exception of one Tory, recommends that those who have taken an early retirement pension, provided they are available and looking for work, ought to be able to receive their unemployment insurance benefits. I want the Minister to stand in his place and say that he will listen to the advice of Members from all sides of the House and do justice to those who deserve to get their UI benefits.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I made a statement in the House about this matter yesterday. The Standing Committee is tabling its report today. There is a procedure to respond to the reports of Standing Committees. I shall now receive the report, but I can tell my hon. friend immediately that I made a very clear statement yesterday, that everything is already quite clear, and that it will remain so.


John R. Rodriguez: It is not clear.
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a question to the Prime Minister. He is probably aware that Mr. Michael Deaver, who received a $150,000 contract from the Government of Canada, was yesterday indicted by a U.S. grand jury. In May of last year in response to inquiries I made in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade the Secretary of State for External Affairs wrote the following:
If there is any determination fay the appropriate U.S. authorities that Mr. Deaver broke U.S. laws in carrying out his contract with Canada, and if these findings reflect unfavourably on Canada, it would then be appropriate for the Canadian Parliament to undertake an investigation of this issue.
Since charges have been laid and that it does reflect unfavourably on Canada, when will the Prime Minister initiate the parliamentary investigation promised by the Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I know nothing beyond that which my hon. friend has just indicated. Presumably the notion of the presumption of innocence applies in the United States as well. If it is indeed the case that a charge has been laid, then I assume that my hon. friend will want to allow whoever is accused to enjoy the presumption of innocence and go through the process without bother or inhibitions by us, unless my hon. friend has a charge or new evidence which he would like to bring forward, in which case I am sure we would like to take a look at it.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will address my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. The point of my question does not relate to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Deaver, but rather to the involvement of the Government of Canada in this matter and the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs made a commitment to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade that any determination would result in an investigation.
Taking into consideration that officials from the Prime Minister's Office, high officials of the Government, are involving themselves in this affair, and how sensitive our relationships with the United States are on environment, trade and other issues, would it not be appropriate to get to the bottom of this matter and determine once and for all what are the involvement and role of officials of the Government of Canada in this very unhappy event in Washington?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, even for my hon. friend that is really quite a scurrilous question. The U.S. General Accounting Office, the

March 19, 1987
Oral Questions
Congressional Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, and special investigators have made no allegations of impropriety by the Canadian Government or any of its agencies at any time, in any circumstances. That is the situation. If my hon. friend has a charge to make or any new evidence, please let him bring it forward, as opposed to the scurrilous smears in which he indulges on a regular basis.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for the status of women. Recently the Public Service Commission refused to recognize home-making skills as relevant experience for a procurement clerk's job. The Minister will know that Canada endorsed resolutions at the Nairobi Decade of Women Conference to value unpaid women's work as part of the GNP. Therefore, will the Minister undertake studies to determine the value of child rearing, home management, and volunteer community work, so that these job skills will be accepted as relevant experience for jobs in the paid labour force?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, it is already the policy of the Government to value that sort of work and to take that into account in a case like this one. What surprises me is that it was a union head who went ahead with the issue and was not prepared to value this work. Given the Hon. Member's political affiliation, I am surprised that she is raising the issue.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I think the Minister should check into the facts of the matter when she makes a statement like that.


TREASURY BOARD'S POSITION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Will the Minister establish procedures to recognize the job skills of home-makers in applications for Public Service jobs, and will he make it a negotiable item in collective bargaining?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is very clear. We recognize unpaid and voluntary work as legitimate work experience. Treasury Board is always aware of that position. It was the position which was applied in this case. The case was brought to an appeal board under the leadership of one of our unions, and an appeal board overturned the Government's position. We are reviewing the situation right now, but it was not at all government policy. The government policy is that we recognize that, and the union does not.


LAPRADE FUND
Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. We learned yesterday evening that the Government is planning to cut back $40 million from the Laprade and Lower St. Lawrence Fund, which was supposed to be used to promote the economic development of our regions. How can the Minister justify this decision in view of his statement to the House on November 25, 1986, that the money in this fund would be used exclusively in the Saint-Maurice-Bois-Franc region?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I shall now repeat exactly the same statement. The region designated to benefit from the Laprade Fund to compensate for the closing of the Laprade plants remains unchanged. It is exactly the same.


Gilles Grondin: I think that the President of the Treasury Board should read the Committee reports, because they mention some changes.


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT REFUSES TO SUBSIDIZE MAURICIE CENTRE INDUSTRIAL INCUBATOR
Gilles Grondin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is this: Why is the Minister refusing to subsidize the regional industrial incubator of the Mauricie Centre which would have a major impact on economic and industrial development in our region when the Government is ready to take away 40 per cent of the Laprade and Lower St. Lawrence Fund and use this money for other purposes outside our region?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the premise of this question is completely false. There is no plan to reduce the funds used to promote economic development in that region-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair could observe that we are a long way through Question Period and we are not doing very well in the number of Members being recognized, and that is because of the length of the exchanges. The Hon. Member has asked a question and the Hon. President of the Treasury Board is trying to answer it. I would ask for co-operation.


Robert René de Cotret: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I shall try to be very brief. The amount in the Laprade Fund has remained the same since we came to power in September 1984. The amount is still the same, and it will be spent in the region which had been designated at the very beginning when the Laprade Fund was created. Third, the money will be spent to create permanent jobs and to promote permanent economic development in the region, contrary to what had happened under the previous
March 19, 1987

Government, which, for years, kept spending as though there was no tomorrow.


HOUSING
John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister in charge of CMHC. With the increased amount of mining activity in the Kirkland Lake area of my riding, much concern has been expressed about low-income housing and senior citizen housing. Could the Minister tell us exactly what is the federal Government's role with regard to providing funding for senior citizen and low-income housing?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I think the problems the Hon. Member is encountering are not peculiar to his riding. They are global, at least in Canada. There are federal-provincial agreements outstanding with all provinces whereby the provinces are charged with the delivery of the programs. The federal Government provides the majority of funds. If the Hon. Member has a particular problem which has not been acknowledged by the province, I would be happy to make representations on his behalf.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. What will be the Government's response to the statement by the International Joint Commission that the only real difficulty with its job and the International Water Quality Agreement is the failure on the part of Governments to show the political commitment to act? For example, will the Government at last bring forward a water quality policy which commits the Government to hard action and appropriate expenditures, or will the Government wait for the impossibility of singles and doubles adding up to home runs?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, I think yet again the Hon. Member has struck out. The fact is that the budget of my Department, Environment Canada, is $768 million. It is higher now than it has ever been in any previous year, except for one. We have brought down an Environmental Protection Act which will be reintroduced into Parliament for first reading, it is to be hoped, this spring. The
Oral Questions
Act addresses many of the concerns raised by the International Joint Commission in its report. In addition, very recently I signed with the Government of the United States the Niagara River pollution abatement program, which will slash toxic loadings into that important international waterway by 50 per cent by 1996. We are taking solid action in response to the International Joint Commission and to other representations.


POSITION OF FEDERAL AND PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same Minister. Is it not clear that an integrated ecosystem approach involving both provincial and federal participation is necessary? Is the Government not welshing on its agreement when it tells municipalities that they will get no help in making their contribution to cleaning up the Great Lakes?


Thomas Michael McMillan: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that the federal Government is welshing on a commitment to the municipalities to support-


Howard Douglas McCurdy: On the agreement.


Thomas Michael McMillan: There is no such agreement. Waterworks of a local sort are within municipal and provincial jurisdiction. We are backing the provinces and the municipalities to the hilt within our federal jurisdiction. We expect the municipalities and the provinces to live up to their side of the bargain.


IMMIGRATION
Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to deal with the case of Mr. George Zoubris, who has been a Canadian citizen since 1968 and a resident of Montreal for 20 years. My question is directed to the Minister of State (Immigration) who is aware of the situation since he had a telephone conversation with this citizen. I would like the Minister to tell us why, three times since July last year, officials of his Department have asked Mr. Zoubris to go to the Department to obtain permanent refugee status?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of State (Immigration)):: Mr. Speaker, I will not respond to the specific question, but I will certainly take note of it and make sure that my officials will be back to the Hon. Member with a complete response.

March 19, 1987
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ASSURANCE MR. ZOUBRIS WILL NOT HAVE TO VISIT DEPARTMENT AGAIN
Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to say that the Minister is very much aware of the situation because he himself spoke to this man.
I would also like the Minister-after he has made yet another inquiry this afternoon-to assure us that Mr. Zoubris will not have to go to the Department of Employment and Immigration at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning and pay $125 to have his passport and Canadian citizenship papers examined.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this situation, and I assured the Hon. Member that the officials of my Department will give her a more detailed report, but it is not proper to raise a specific case here in the House of Commons.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I have here a copy of a study that has been done of the Canadian Jobs Strategy by the Ontario Government on behalf of all 10 provincial Governments. Does the Minister agree with the key recommendation in the study, which criticizes the Canadian Jobs Strategy, that funding should be increased from $1.7 billion to $2.5 billion? This would bring funding up to the 1984 index level when the Minister took over. Does the Minister agree with that? Will he end the cut-backs and increase the money to train the unemployed of Canada, particularly for those regions that need it?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I can only suggest that my colleague ought to be proud of the Canadian Jobs Strategy results, knowing as we do that 80,000 Canadians are involved every day. The Government of Ontario may very well urge us to increase our budgets to unrealistic levels, but I think the Jobs Strategy program has proven to be a success and the results attest to that. Many Canadians are in a position to find that out for themselves every day. Again I repeat that the Government can be proud of the results-705,000 jobs in two years-something which you will spend the rest of your life hoping to achieve.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. It concerns the new R.C.M.P. policy with regard to married couples in the Force. As the Minister knows, the new policy is regressive, inequitable, and discriminatory to families.
Is the Solicitor General prepared to instruct the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to scrap the new policy and adopt a policy that would be far more humane and fair in the circumstances?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Hon. Member raised this question during my absence with the President of the Treasury Board. The President of the Treasury Board was good enough to bring this matter to my attention. I have already had a preliminary discussion with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and have asked the R.C.M.P. for a full briefing on the matter. At that time I will be looking at the policy in depth.


Mr. Speaker:: The last question for the Question Period will go the Hon. Member for York East.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Some time ago New Zealand closed its ports to ships that were powered by nuclear fuel. This past weekend the New Democratic Party committed itself to a similar policy. Would the Minister advise the House what effect such a policy would have on Canada and, in particular, upon its membership in NATO and NORAD?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, such a policy would require us to turn back ships from allied nations. The effect on New Zealand of its policy has been to damage its defence relationships severely with other friendly powers around the world. It is a policy that would be very damaging to Canada's national defence interests.


John Edward Broadbent: Do you believe that?
March 19, 1987


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the customary question of the Government House Leader as to what business for the Government he intends to call for the coming week.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to. I must say that I was rather surprised in the Question Period today-and it clearly demonstrates how badly the opposition Parties are out of touch when they fail to recognize the economic realities in the country-not to hear that we have the lowest interest rate in thirteen and a half years of 7.14 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: There are some things, I suppose, that create certain temptations in the Chamber. The Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) has asked a question of the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankowski) with respect to the business-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I have asked the question. If he wants to talk about records, he should talk about-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister would like to respond.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin).


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I think it behooves the House to remember that yesterday was St. Paddy's Day and that if the Deputy Prime Minister wants to practise blarney, yesterday was the day to do it.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has, of course, as have all Hon. Members, the right to think anything he wants about what was yesterday. It is not for the Chair to point out that today is March 19.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: In any event, the Deputy Prime Minister has the floor.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Perhaps he can say something intelligent.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we know that the Hon. Member who just spoke is noted for his blarney, but he is also noted for the fact that he is quite a politician. He just came back from Newfoundland after deposing his provincial leader.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I should share with Hon. Members that the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) pointed out that in Newfoundland they celebrate St. Patrick's Day for two days.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: But if we do not get to the business of the day, we will be here for a couple of days. The Hon. Deputy Prime Minister has the floor.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, today we will continue with Bill C-44. My understanding is that there is an agreement among all Parties to conclude this piece of legislation in all stages.


Raymond Garneau: If you don't make any more statements.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I will not make any more statements, provided the Hon. Member does not extend me the invitation.
We will complete Bill C-44 today. Friday will be an allotted day; Monday next will be an allotted day; Tuesday will be an allotted day; Wednesday we will proceed with Bills C-43 and C-45. I understand that there has been some discussion with regard to the expeditious passage of those two pieces of legislation. Bill C-38 on Teleglobe will follow, being at report stage.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, just to clarify, I think the Government House Leader meant to say, although he seemed to use a lot of verbiage today, that there was agreement for second reading today. The reason our NDP caucus gave agreement to that was to ensure that the many witnesses who wish to appear on the equalization legislation will have the opportunity to do so all of next week and into the week following.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, the Hon. Member is correct. It was a misunderstanding on my part.

March 19, 1987
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-44, 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.
Clement George Minaker: Madam Speaker, before we broke for dinner today, I was indicating why I supported Bill C-44, the equalization payment Bill. I would like to recap my remarks and, in the 10 minutes I have left, highlight some of the reasons for my support of Bill C-44.
First, equalization payments for this year and next are increasing. Members of the Opposition have tried to imply that the equalization payments will not increase and I would like to put on record that in 1987-88, equalization payments for the provinces that receive them will be increasing from $5.3 billion to $5.6 billion and in 1988-89 they will increase to $5.9 billion. That is an increase of well over 5 per cent per year and it is in addition to the forgiveness of the over-payment which will amount to somewhere in the neighbourhood of $270 million.
The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) indicated earlier in his debate that the net forgiveness clause in the Bill would interfere with and cancel out the technical increases, but that is not correct. I do not know if the Hon. Member misunderstood the Bill or if he was trying to mislead the House, but there is no way to connect the net forgiveness in the over-payment with the technical changes. The technical changes are for future years while the forgiveness in the overpayment is for the past two years.
The Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) as well as the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides implied that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) had indicated that the technical changes would be handled in one year. I would like to remind Hon. Members that the Minister of Finance indicated very clearly on December 17 in the House of Commons, in response to a question put by the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), the following:
Mr. Speaker, this proposal was made by officials of the provincial and federal Governments. The offer did not come from the federal Government. I told the provinces yesterday and last Friday that the federal Government could not possibly accept the one-year proposal. We were agreeable to an increase over two years, and that is what our Government has decided. This is in addition to the increase from 4 to 6 per cent in the annual increment for the equalization program.
The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides indicated, I believe, that there would be a $400 million loss in the major transfer payments. Again, that is incorrect. I would like to make it very clear to the House and to Canadians that the major federal transfers which are made up of the equalization
payments, the EPF and the Canada Assistance payments totalled $25,887 billion in 1986-87. The major federal transfers will be increased in the coming year to $27,328 billion, for a total increase to all the provinces of $1.44 billion. That is a lot of money. I like to say it is 27,328 millions of dollars in transfers to the provinces. In addition to that, another $2.5 billion will go to the provinces. I believe it is very clear that the payments are increasing.
I would like to comment on what this means to the province in which I live, Manitoba. The 1987 Manitoba Budget in Brief, under the heading "A Good Place to Live and Work", says that Manitoba's economic performance has been above average for Canada and is expected to lead other provinces again in 1987. The total transfer payments to Manitoba will represent $1,312 billion this year. Manitoba's Budget indicates that the budgetary expenditure for the Province of Manitoba this year will be $4,188 billion. The budgetary revenue, the amount of money collected through taxes and from the transfers from the federal Government, will represent $3,773, resulting in a net deficit budget requirement of $415 million. The $1,312 billion that the federal Government will be transferring to the province in the coming year compared to the $3,773 billion that will be collected means that over 35 cents of every dollar raised in Manitoba will be coming from federal transfer payments. At that point, the provincial Government must take some responsibility. If it wishes to spend on programs, many of which I support, then I believe it is also its responsibility to raise the revenues and not just get the money from the federal Government. As I mentioned earlier, there is only one federal taxpayer, there is only one provincial taxpayer and there is only one municipal taxpayer.
I believe Governments should be responsible. The federal Government has been responsible in trying to control the deficit. As the Hon. Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Mazankow-ski) just mentioned a few moments ago, the Bank of Canada interest rate has fallen to 7.14 per cent today. What does that mean to the provinces? Most of the provinces have accumulated debts on which they will be paying lower interest charges this year. Even the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Keeper) recognized the other day that the lower interest rate will be beneficial to the provinces.
W'hy is the interest rate lower? It is because the people of the world know that Canada is trying to control its debt. As a result, they have confidence in our dollar. The interest rate has gone down because of the confidence in the dollar. Inflation is down. This will benefit all the different levels of Government. I say that the different levels of Government must take some responsibility and I call upon them to be fair about this.
The equalization payments to Manitoba this year will be $441 million for 1986-87 and they will grow to $469 million in 1987-88. That represents roughly $435 per person and accounts for more than 10 per cent of the actual revenue collected in the province. That is unconditional money. There are no strings attached to it whatsoever. The province can do whatever it wants with that money.
March 19, 1987

As well, my province benefited from the estimate of the number of people in the province to the tune of another $15 million this year. Instead of being forgiven an overpayment, the province will receive an extra $15 million. When we add up the $1,312 billion the province will receive from the federal Government, it means in excess of $1,200 per person. I commend our Government for that. As I indicated earlier, this will account for approximately 35 per cent of the Manitoba Budget, not counting the money it has to borrow. This is a 6 per cent increase in a province which is one of the leaders in economic growth in Canada.
I know we all benefit from equalization payments. I know Manitoba benefits quite well. It is in our Constitution and I support it. We have to recognize the different regions of our country and the fact we should all have a certain quality of life regardless of where we live.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments.


Raymond Garneau: Madam Speaker, my friend just said I was incorrect when I suggested in my speech earlier today that if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) forgave the recovery of equalization payments from previous years, that would be balanced by the technical changes brought about by this legislation. I would like to remind my colleague that the Minister, in his statement on March 11 in this House, said:
That is to say, the amounts due the federal Government as a result of the census will be forgiven to the extent that they exceed future increases in equalization entitlements-
I also referred to the reaction of the Premier of Newfoundland. He said he was disappointed because of the way the Minister of Finance decided to apply the results of the midterm census. I would like the Hon. Member to read the ministerial statement and perhaps retract what he said. It is not my interpretation of what he said, it is exactly what the Minister said in the House, that it would be applied "to the extent that they exceed future increases in equalization entitlements". I hope the Hon. Member will read that. If he does he will probably agree that this is the way the Minister decided to apply the regulations.


Clement George Minaker: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to have the opportunity to answer the question. If the Hon. Member would continue to read the statement I think it would become more apparent. He has left out the tail end of it. It says:
That is to say, the amounts due the federal Government as a result of the census will be forgiven to the extent that they exceed future increases in equalization entitlements, for those same two fiscal years,-
That is, the years 1985-86 and 1986-87. The Minister went on to say:
-which may arise as a result of changes in other financial and economic data relevant to the equalization formula.
That is for the past two years. Perhaps it is a misunderstanding on the part of the Hon. Member but it relates to the years
Federal- Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
1985-86 and 1986-87 and would not affect future years. That is the way it was explained to me by the Minister's Department.


Mr. Peterson:: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member's comments about the unconditional nature of equalization payments. I am especially interested in the way they have been applied. Would the Member comment on how some of those funds have been applied by his Province of Manitoba, especially in light of the large deficits incurred by the present Government?


Clement George Minaker: Madam Speaker, I do not really want to get into details on how the provincial Government spends its money. I left that arena and I am in this arena now. I do not necessarily agree with all the ways the money is spent, but I cannot agree with the large deficit. It is very clear that we as a federal Government are starting to control the deficit and bringing it down. That has resulted in an interest rate of 7.14 per cent being set today. There will be benefits for my province and the province of the Hon. Member because of that. The provinces have a very large public debt and this interest rate will obviously be of benefit. One of the main reasons we have this low interest rate is our Government's stand on the deficit. The rest of the world knows we are committed to reducing it, and that is why the value of our dollar is up and interest rates are down.


Mr. McKenzie:: Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) for straightening out the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau). That Hon. Member seems to be thoroughly confused about the national debt. I saw him on national television a couple of weeks ago misinforming and handing out false information to the Canadian people. He called this Government's Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) the king of deficits. I am sure he is a little confused. What he should have said was that it was the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner) who was the architect of our national debt.
I will explain to him what happened and how we got into this ridiculous situation under successive Liberal Governments. In 1972, when the Right Hon. Member for Vancouver Quadra was the Minister of Finance, he inherited a surplus of $700 million. In 1975 he left and there was a deficit of almost $5 billion. That is referred to as the Turner formula. The Right Hon. Member introduced blank cheque government to this country, uncontrolled spending and the encouraging of empirebuilding. The Liberals did not even know how many Crown corporations they had. That formula was carried on by Macdonald, MacEachen, Chretien and all the rest. That Turner blank cheque formula was stopped in 1984. If we had not taken control of expenditures the deficit would be $42 billion this year. We have reduced it by $10 billion.
It is very easy to be a Liberal or a New Democrat. They have one theory and one philosophy. You solve all problems by spending more money. About 90 per cent of the questions they

March 19, 1987
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
ask in this House, including those from the Rat Pack, are concerned with giving everyone more money. Everyone is to get more money from the Government. They never explain where all of that money is to come from.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Point of order, Madam Speaker. The 10-minute period is restricted to questions and comments on the speech of an Hon. Member. That Member across the way is not doing that. He is just giving us a lot of blah-blah, superfluous verbiage, and everything else. I ask him to ask a question or sit down.


An Hon. Member:: The truth hurts.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sure the Hon. Member believes what he just said, but I think the Hon. Member was commenting. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg- St. James (Mr. Minaker) may have a comment on the comment of his colleague.


Clement George Minaker: Madam Speaker, first I must concur with my colleague that the large deficit that was accumulated under the former Liberal Government has affected our Government's ability to fund the equalization payments to the provinces. I am sure that our Government would like to give the provinces more money but they have to recognize, as I stated before lunch, that presently 80 cents out of every dollar paid in federal income tax goes to pay the interest on the outstanding debt. We are strained financially to give the provinces more money when only 20 cents out of every dollar remains to deal with that problem. While there is other tax revenue, 80 cents out of every dollar in federal income tax goes to pay the interest on the outstanding debt and that is why we must get control of the deficit, as my hon. colleague indicated.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Minaker) said that he was concerned about the growing deficit in Manitoba. I am sure that he is also concerned about the more rapidly increasing deficit in Saskatchewan and the increasing deficits in British Columbia and a number of other Conservative and neoConservative provinces. How do the provinces decrease these deficits when the federal Government has removed more and more money in Established Programs Financing?
The Hon. Member, who was on the committee, knows that there is $5.6 billion less going to the provinces through EPF financing because of the formula passed by the federal Government last year. Yet the money that is coming from the equalization will not even cover that. Therefore, automatically the deficits in the provinces must increase. Will the Hon. Member explain his comment about a need for reduced deficits in the provinces when the federal Government is not doing its share in meeting the needs of those provinces?


Clement George Minaker: Madam Speaker, the major federal transfers have increased, not decreased as the Hon Member has indicated. They will increase in excess of 5 per cent per year.
The money being spent in this particular envelope represents the fastest growing expenditure of the federal Government.
In Manitoba, the EPF payment in 1985-86 was $610 billion, in 1986-87 it will be $648 billion, and in 1987-88 it will be $681 billion. It increases quite substantially every year, in excess of some 6 per cent per year.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on a Bill that concerns equalization payments and cash transfers to the provinces. Madam Speaker, being a Quebecer yourself, you will understand my reaction. Today's poll shows that 50 per cent would have voted for the Liberals and 17 per cent for the Conservatives. It is just as well the polling firm did not include the Rhinoceros Party in its questionnaire, because the Conservatives would have come fourth with 7 per cent, while the Rhinoceros Party would have had 10 per cent. And when you watch the Government and the Prime Minister, I think they are just as entertaining as the Rhinos.
On the subject of equalization payments, Mr. Gerard D. Levesque, the Quebec Minister of Finance, and the Hon. Robert Bourassa, the Premier of Quebec and a man I hold in high esteem, who has made his mark and has shown a great deal of courage, both these gentlemen are demanding the province's fair share. We are not asking for sympathy. We are not asking for charity. We are asking for our fair share.
At this very moment, the Government of Quebec is claiming $91 million it is owed by the federal Government.
I have here a document dated April 2, 1985. Of course the House is well aware Premier Bourassa is a Member of the Liberal Party. For Quebec, however, it is not a matter of politics, it is a matter of justice. The document in question was signed by Mr. Yves Duhaime, then Minister of Finance in the Parti Quebecois Government, and like Premier Bourassa and Quebec Minister of Finance, Mr. Gerard D. Levesque, he was claiming reimbursement of money owed and felt that the way Quebecers were being treated by this Conservative Government was entirely unfair and unacceptable. At the time, they were claiming $81 million, as a result of the inaction and incompetence of this Government, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister. And today, Quebec is still lagging behind.
What are the consequences of this lack of cash transfers from the federal Government to Quebecers? It has meant a loss of billions of dollars for secondary education, health insurance and hospital insurance programs. Who is affected by this situation? If it were just a quarrel or a conflict between the Quebec Minister of Finance and the Minister of Finance in Ottawa, a personality conflict, for instance, his limousine is bigger than mine or one Minister travels more than the other, I wouldn't even bother. However, the consequences are borne by ordinary citizens. Less money for post-secondary education will penalize our sons and daughters. There will be less money to educate our children. More poor families will have to let
March 19, 1987

their children join the labour market instead of finishing school.
As for the cutbacks in health care, they affect our families, our children, and the entire population of Quebec, especially as far as health care and hospital services are concerned in regions such as Bellechasse and the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, where it is more difficult to find doctors and adequate services such as exist in the major centres like Montreal and Quebec City, where the people are well taken care of and where there are full services in community centres, as well as accommodations and emergency home services.
The media often tell us about the overcrowding in the emergency rooms of our hospitals. The Quebec Minister of Elealth and Welfare, Mrs. Lavoie-Roux, is finding it very difficult to solve this problem, even though everyone in Quebec would like to do so, whether they are Pequistes, Liberals or something else, but whenever they sit down at a table to try to find an answer, someone very, very smart in Ottawa says that he will cut off their funds. This reminds me of what happened yesterday. Since I am speaking about senior citizens and early retirement... I can see Conservative Members from Quebec, who are always ready to applaud anything that the Minister says. They act like clowns, they always smile and say that everything is perfect. As for me, I have worked on three rather important issues, and in the case of senior citizens who demanded justice once for six weeks and then for 14 months, the Government finally had to admit that a mistake had been made. Then how come with old age security pension indexing, senior citizens had to demonstrate on Parliament Hill. Mrs. Denis even had to address the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) sharply and Members of the Opposition had to complain for weeks before the Government admitted it was wrong?
In the field of health, the same thing happened with the 10 percent tax on medecine. Together with Members of the Opposition, people suffering from diabetes, cardio-vascular and respiratory diseases had to constantly pressure the Government for four or five months to bring the Prime Minister and the Cabinet to the realization that they had made a mistake. Tory Members never rise in the House to protect the interests of these people.
Again, yesterday, the 35,000 early retirees in Canada, including 13,000 in Quebec, have succeeded and forced the Minister of Employment and Immigration for the first time and the Prime Minister for the third time to admit that they had been wrong. But why is it that no Tory Member in the House, whether representing Quebec, Alberta, Ontario, Atlantic or Western Canada, has ever managed to convince the Prime Minister by telling him: My dear Prime Minister, you are dead wrong.
For instance, let us look at matters strictly of interest to Quebec. The aerospace centre for instance. There again, Quebec is about to be hoodwinked. The same thing in the case
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
of equalization payments, tax point transfers, post-secondary education, as well as health programs and hospitalization services.
Let us take for instance the famous promise concerning the Banking Centre in Montreal. Everybody here knows that I am a Montrealer, beside being a Quebecer and a Canadian. I am a citizen of the Montreal-Sainte-Marie riding. The formal promise made by the Prime Miniser to Montrealers: the International Banking Centre will solve all your problems. In fact, what we got was a night counter, a night teller. The guy who lives far away would be able to make a deposit in Montreal at night. That is of no use; it is a joke. These are nothing but half-measures.
There are other Quebec programs, including equalization, which have been poorly put together including the cleaning up of the St. Lawrence River polluted water which is again in the news. Mr. Clift Lincoln, the Quebec Minister of Environment, is not asking for a hand out but something similar to what other provinces have already received, in order to help Quebec clean up the St. Lawrence River.
In view of the fact that this request came from Quebec, the federal response, as in the area of equalization, is no. Another similar issue-you know that over the past few months, a large number of refugees have come to the province of Quebec, to Montreal. Faced with this situation, Mrs. Robic, the Quebec Minister responsible for ethnic groups, turned to Ottawa and ever so gently asked for assistance, in view of this particular situation, to help Quebec foot the bill. Again, because it was a Quebec request, the answer was no.
There were also requests for funds to help Montreal-East and the shipyards. Quebec shipyards still have a major role to play and used to be a job creation industry. Let us look at the Lauzon shipyards near Quebec City. In four instances, six months ago, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion promised those people that 1,000 workers would be hired to work there. There are now approximately ten workers in the yards, and the 1,000 others who expected to get jobs on the construction of the Caribou II have just been told that this may have to wait until next October. So there is another delay.
At the Sorel shipyards, which have quite a reputation, the Marine Industries yards, there again 200 layoffs are expected within the next two months. The only remaining work involves contracts that were awarded by the previous Liberal Government.
And at the Versatile Vickers yards, well, two weeks from now the naval section in Montreal will be shut down.
There you have 5,000 Quebec workers who have been demonstrating for the past year and a half. All the employees of all the companies have been here on Parliament Hill. They have met with the Hon. Member for Levis (Mr. Fontaine), the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, with Members from the entire Quebec region. On each occasion there were promises, but again not one darn job has yet been created.

March 19, 1987
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
The same thing goes for Sorel. The former Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Cote) told on Parliament Hill: "That is settled. Don't worry, fellows, I am looking after that." He has looked after himself, and is no longer a minister.
Same thing in Montreal. There was the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret)-when the Montreal East end issue came up, there were five Ministers dealing with it, five Ministers on that committee: The President of the Treasury Board, the former Minister of Environment, the now Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Bouchard) and the former Minister of State for Small Businesses. Two Ministers had to resign from that committee. They were never replaced. And not a single job has yet been created in Montreal East end.
If the Gulf refinery is in operation, it is thanks to a Minister in Quebec, the Minister of Energy, Mr. Ciaccia, who decided to roll up his sleeves. Now, 250 employees are working there. It is not because of the Hon. Member for Montreal-Mercier (Mrs. Jacques), the Hon. Member for Gamelin (Mr. Gravel), nor the Hon. Member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers). It is simply because people in Montreal East end, whether PQ, Liberals, members of the Civic Party, of the RCM, representatives of all labour federations, union and nonunion people, they all joined in. The only ones who bickered among themselves in public were Conservative Members.
What about the Matane paper mill, the Desbiens paper mill, potato producers? We see another injustice there. Even the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Prime Minister were sent in to open the Matane paper mill. There was a big party. After the party, pictures were taken. Two weeks later they were announcing: No, no go! Nothing has been started yet. Words again! That is all our national camera kid can do, give a small handshake. I will settle all that. You may be sure that at the present rate, you will get nothing.
Let us look at what is going on in the footwear industry or better still with the former Melchers employees. The matter was thought to be solved. They were in to meet me as recently as two months ago asking me to intervene because they were unable to meet their Member who is a minister of the Crown, the Hon. Member for Berthier-Maskinonge-Lanaudiere (Mr. de Cotret).
Now, the footwear industry. In the past, the Quebec caucus had always stood against the officials and even the Prime Minister who was opposed to quotas, to protect the footwear industry. What did the Quebec Tory Members do? Niet. Nothing. Footwear quotas were removed. They all applauded because the then Minister said in his speech: "No problem!" What is going on today? One year later, 4,000 jobs have been lost. Industries have been affected not only in the Montreal area but also in Trois Rivieres, and Shawinigan where large manufactures were providing jobs which fostered regional economy.
I see that the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) is here and this reminds me of another project. There was the preretirement plan in designated sectors or for the so-called designated industries and I will explain, Madam Speaker. The footwear industry as well as the textile and clothing industries had a program in designated districts such as the Thetford and Sorel areas as well as in other areas which could also make use of it. Under that program, if the footwear industry as a result of modernization or changes had to dismiss some of its employees, workers aged 55 years or over were eligible to what was called preretirement under the unemployment insurance scheme which allowed those workers who had not found jobs in their areas to draw unemployment insurance benefits up to their age of retirement. It is an vital program in remote areas. The Government, the Minister of Finance announced a new adjustment program for workers. And all of a sudden, the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of Labour terminated the existing program which gave early retirees the right to collect unemployment insurance benefits. In their announcements, they said: We are going to negotiate a new adjustment program for workers with the provinces, and the program will be retroactive. This was six months ago, and nothing has been done yet. The Minister of Labour is there, but nothing has been done. If a plant or a factory closes tomorrow, no one will be entitled to the safeguards of this program. This is another instance where the federal Government wanted to save on unemployment insurance benefits. It wanted to give less than welfare, and it was asking the provinces to make up the difference. And that is why the Minister of Labour cannot rise in the House and say: Mr. Malepart or the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie is wrong, we have an excellent program. There is no program. So far there has been no progress whatsoever. And not a single Conservative Member has raised this point. I have the impression they didn't know and that it is definitely news to them. I only hope that at least the Minister of Labour, a good Quebecer, realizes things are not going according to plan and that although so far he has been left in peace, this may be the next issue to get a going over. I advise him not to follow the example of his other colleagues and to settle before he is forced to. I think we have here a series of issues that clearly show . . . It is not surprising why only 17 per cent of the people of Quebec trust the Conservatives and that between 71 and 76 per cent do not trust the Prime Minister and the Conservative Government. It is all quite simple. The evidence is there and these are the people speaking. These are the people who elected this Government and who are now prepared to throw them out tomorrow. I have the impression that the longer they postpone the election, the fewer Conservative Members they will have left. They will be an endangered species!
Madam Speaker, since I have only one minute left, I want to urge Members from Quebec to sit up and take notice! I think it is high time somebody rose in the House and told the Minister ... In fact, to be honest, two of them did. The Hon.
March 19, 1987

Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) rose today to speak to the matter of unemployment insurance, and he said: The Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Prime Minister are wrong. The Hon. Member for Hochelaga- Maisonneuve (Mr. Desrosiers) had the courage to rise. He doesn't follow the herd. He said: As far as unemployment insurance benefits and pension plans are concerned, my Prime Minister and the Minister of Employment and Immigration are wrong. That makes two of them. But is anyone going to rise in the House and say: Is the Prime Minister going to do something about equalization, justice for Quebec, the programs Quebec is claiming and the twenty-one dossiers that are pending?


Mr. Cadieux:: Madam Speaker, I am somewhat hesitant to rise today because I would not want to give too much significance to what my colleague has just said. Still, if only for the record, I should like to indicate that the program to which my colleague referred, what he called the pre-retirement program, was the then Liberal Government Labour Adjustment Program which was slated to end in 1985. We did extend it for one year to find a better substitute, not something which would apply only to designated sectors but a program designed for all sectors with a view to protecting and helping all older workers, not just some of them. I will certainly have more to say about this once the program is ready for implementation, but I have no intention of promoting it before it is unveiled.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, at least I woke up one of them long enough for him to rise. Sad to say, as usual he is off on a tangent. True, the program was to end, but then all programs come to an end with a change in Government, there is nothing new in that. But if a program is working out well it should be extended. But can the Minister explain to me on the basis of what principle would his Government end a program and say: We have something better, but we do not know when it will be ready . Would any sensible person behave like that? I understand, the Minister says: I cannot go into the details of the program today. There are no details, the whole thing does not work. But the problem ... If he had said: There is a good solution, here is the future program, this gives you an idea but in the meantime the programs designed for soft sectors or designated areas will continue to apply. On the other hand, he tells others: You are the most underprivileged and you are having problems in your regions, but I shall solve everything and help everyone throughout the country; however, I do not know when I can find the solution; here is how we are going to do it. I can understand that the Minister is ashamed about this and does not want to say anything. I would do the same in his place and I would remain silent. He is asking the provinces to share.
Madam Speaker, I am happy that one member opposite at least did speak up. We heard that he is Minister of Labour. No one knew it. I took it upon myself to make this fact known. However, I trust that he will now rise and tell us that such or such a program exists for the good of the community, but not like he has been doing to this point.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, I am certainly not ashamed to ask the provinces to help older workers because I believe that all Governments should do something for these people. They should not discriminate and take care only of certain regions, because there are older workers in the Montreal region who were perhaps not specifically covered by the old program in the constituency of my hon. friend and who will be protected by the new program when it comes into effect.
In the meantime, Madam Speaker, the workers are protected since these programs come into affect only after all other benefits, including unemployment insurance, are exhausted. If my hon. friend knows how to consult a calendar, he will realize that no one has ever lost any benefits because of this.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, I do not know whether the Hon. Member comes from a wealthy family, but he does not understand the effects of such a delay. When someone does not know what to expect after six months, he becomes worried and nervous. If the Hon. Member comes from a wealthy family and relied on his father to pay all the bills, I can understand that he would have no idea about what such a situation means. The Government is asking the provinces to share, it is reducing equalization entitlements and the amounts allocated to help older workers. If the Federal Government had shown some generosity, it would have said: We are allocating the same amount to help all the workers throughout the regions, but since we want to cover the entire country, we shall ask the provinces to put up an equal amount.
Instead, the Minister is cutting back the amounts allocated to older workers to reduce the deficit, to help people with bank deposits of over $60,000 and to spend $56 million on new uniforms which had to be thrown out later because they smelled bad. Then, the Minister asks the provinces to make up the difference. The older workers do not benefit; the Federal Government is simply helping its own friends.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, I would not insist on depriving Hon. Members from their right to speak in other circumstances, but I think there is a limit to distorting facts. And I think the Hon. Member is quite aware that senior citizens should be helped, not scared. The program in question will be a better program if only, Madam Speaker, because it will apply to all senior workers rather than to only some of them. And again, if the Hon. Member could look at the amount of funding that has been provided for that program, and the extension of benefits under the previous program, he would realize that not only have we made no cuts, but we had the benefits increased.


Jean-Claude Malépart: This is a darn good debate. We succeeded in waking him up for once, but he is still beside the track. The amounts of money he wants to provide to senior workers fall short of what they used to be. This is what he calls helping senior workers, taking money away from the poor in order to give it to the rich. I realize this is his leader's philosophy, but

March 19, 1987
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
these are the facts. Indeed, the Hon. Member for Bellechasse (Mr. Blais) is here. The Marine Industries workers in Sorel met with the Minister. They met with the Minister, and they would like to have . . . because their industry was designated- they would like to avail themselves of the program that we used to call in popular language-I understand that Minister is somewhat high-browed-but people who are working at Marine Industries, the fellow who used to be a welder would like at age 57 or 58 to benefit from the previous program. But they cannot. Those people, they are the youngest ones, are forced into unemployment because you have ended that program. They would like to claim entitlement to the previous program. But then you say about your new program-and Lamoureux, Chairman of the Marine Industries workers' union, went to see you, but the program you are offering only provides for ridiculous amounts. Less than the Quebec welfare. It is therefore unaceptable for this Government to brag about helping senior workers. Your performance is bad. You were one of the Ministers, one of the Members who supported the Government move to de-index old age security pensions. You said nothing when you cut, when you took unemployment insurance away from those workers who had gone to an early retirement in order to help the younger ones, but there again you are penalizing people in the future.
So you are in no position to give any lesson to anybody with respect to senior citizens.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) on a point of order.


Pierre H. Cadieux: First, Madam Speaker, I prefer keeping my mouth shut to speaking and having nothing to say. As for being high-browed, Madam Speaker, I view this as an additional asset.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Bellechasse and Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais).


Mr. Blais:: Madam Speaker-


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: No. The Minister of Labour has already risen on a point of order.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart).


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker . . . Either you sit down, or I will. One of us must sit down.
With regard to the point of order, Madam Speaker, the Minister says that there is nothing wrong with being an
intellectual, but it is sometimes important for intellectuals to think about the people.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Minister of Labour rises on a point of Order.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Madam Speaker, I said that it was an additional asset meaning you can still have others.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of Order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order! Order, please! I am sure that both sides of the House realize that these are not points of order. In fact, only two and a half or three minutes remain to the question and comment period. 1 will recognize the Hon. Member for Bellechasse, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Blais).


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, I have a comment to make on this because they are just trying to-


Jean-Claude Malépart: I woke you up.


Pierre Blais: Yes, you did. You wake us up or you think you do with this nonsense, but when you talk about job creation, and about Bellechasse-well, I am not near Sorel, being a 175 miles away from it. At least, to begin with, you could check your geography. Since you are referring to Bellechasse, some 1,100 jobs were created over the past few months to replace the 2,500 which had been lost during the terrible time of your administration. I want to tell the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie that was the reason why Bellechasse was a designated area. But today, it could no longer be recognized as a designated area, because the economic situation has greatly improved.
All you have managed to do is to spread fear in the Montreal area. The Minister of Labour has just said so.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I urged the Hon. Member for Bellechasse to address the Chair when talking to his colleagues.


Pierre Blais: I am sorry, Madam Speaker. It is easy sometimes, because of a bad influence to forget.
In the footwear industry alone, which he mentioned a while ago, nearly 1,000 jobs, approximately 900 in Quebec, have been created by the Taurus Company. You should listen instead. Those are statistical data. There are 200 in Montreal, 200 also in the riding, Madam Speaker. These are employment figures, some 40,000 in Quebec, 700,000 in Canada. That is what you should talk about, and there are several also in the Montreal area. With regard to the shipyard issue which you raised, you are hellbent on frightening everybody; you were never concerned with rationalization. What did the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboia (Mr. Mckenzie) tell you this afternoon? He stated very clearly that your philosophy and that of your bosom buddies from the New Democratic
March 19, 1987

Party are based on spending. The hell with spending! It does not matter how much you spend; what matters is to get reelected.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Bissonnette and Stevens never spent money?


Pierre Blais: With the Laprade fund, you wasted $100 million building picnic tables and painting churches. The money we spend is used to create permanent jobs in all Quebec ridings, in the Beauce area, in Bellechasse, in Quebec East, in Vaudreuil, that is what we tried to do. It is easy for you to try to flatter the humble people as you call them. I see you are laughing. I do not know if you are laughing at them, but we do respect them.


Mr. Rossi:: What do you have against churches?


Pierre Blais: We should begin by balancing the budget of those people and act in such way that our expenditures which have been increasing for years, the huge deficit burdening Canadian taxpayers-


Carlo Rossi: What do you have against churches?


Jean-Claude Malépart: Do you want an answer? Are you afraid of it?


Pierre Blais: This is a comment. I am asking you the following simple question.


Carlo Rossi: What do you have against churches? Tell it to your bishop!


Pierre Blais: I have nothing against churches!


Carlo Rossi: This is not what you have just said!


Pierre Blais: I met my bishop last week and I am in a state of grace!


Carlo Rossi: In a state of grace!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. In all fairness, I will give a minute to the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) to conclude before resuming debate.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, that will be enough, after having heard such inane talk. There are a million and a half unemployed, a million and a half jobless-


Pierre Blais: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry, the Chair shall not entertain that point of order. On the other hand, given the comments made by the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie, I shall end the debate as of now.


Raymond Garneau: Why?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Debate. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements


Jean-Claude Malépart: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.


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


Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, I am no expert on procedural matters, but since when, and I would like someone from the Table to fill you in on this, since when can someone, a Speaker of the House, on the basis of comments such as those, decide to take away a minute of speech time from a Member of the House, once it has been granted? I find your attitude unacceptable and partisan, Madam Speaker-


An Hon. Member:: Oh! Oh!


Jean-Claude Malépart: You might consider handing in your resignation!


Pierre Blais: How low can you go?


Carlo Rossi: He is entitled to that minute!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order!


Mrs.   Duplessis@: But he has no right to insult her!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, I would like to inform the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) that the extra minute granted him was over and above the normal speech time he was entitled to. I had even deemed appropriate to grant three additional minutes given the debate which had arisen and the numerous points of order. The original questions and comments period following the Hon. Member's speech has been over for six minutes now. I think that the easiest for everybody at this time would be to go back to the debate. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has the floor.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think there are no points of order at this time, I just interrupted the debate. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has the floor.


Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Thank you, Madam Speaker.


Raymond Garneau: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides on a point of order.


Raymond Garneau: Madam Speaker, I heard the comments you made regarding the time allocated for debate. I am rising on this point of order because I am wondering about the reasons which led the Chair to cut short the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) after giving him an extra minute. The reason given by the Chair is that the Hon. Member used a word that the Chair did not like, but I submit that word is not unparliamentary. If the proceedings in this

March 19, 1987
Adjournment Debate
House are going to be governed by the appreciation of some words, which are not unparliamentary, by the Chair, we are entering into a debate which will be very difficult for you and many other people.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I want to make the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau) and all the other Hon. Members aware of the fact that I did not object in any way to a specific word but rather to a general atmosphere which seemed to spread through the House of Commons at this time. As the time had already elapsed, I thought I should put an end to a debate which could grow bitter and which could have prompted some Hon. Members to exchange words they might have regretted later. This was a matter of judgment, and I stand by my ruling.


Raymond Garneau: I maintain my point of view, Mrs. Speaker.


Carlo Rossi: I rise on the same point of order, Mrs. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: As I have decided at this time to recognize the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), I consider this point of order has been taken of.


Carlo Rossi: I rise on the same point of order, Mrs. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: This point of order has been settled; the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has the floor.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I remind my friends of the Liberal Party they should not keep on raising points of order all the time. We have come to an agreement with the government to try to complete the second reading consideration of this bill today. Everybody, including the Liberal Party, should therefore have a chance to take part in the debate. That is what I will try to do, and I appeal to my colleagues not to raise points of order which will effectively obstruct the continuation of the debate. If I may continue-


Carlo Rossi: Not according to the Chair's decision!


U6I0) PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION   SUBJECT MATTER OF QUESTIONS TO BE DEBATED
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-Official Languages-(a) Government position, (b) Demand for detailed information; the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger)-Science and Technology-(a) Opportunity to increase funds for research, (b) Approval of projects;
the Hon. Member Davenport (Mr. Caccia)-Environmental Affairs-Acid rain-(a) Forthcoming meeting between Prime Minister and United States President, (b) Need for United States commitment.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-44, 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, Bill C-44 is a very serious piece of legislation, since it will cut equalization payments to the province of Quebec by about $71 million and payments to the province of Manitoba by a fairly substantial amount. In fact, it is in line with this Government's policy to cut the growth of equalization payments and tax transfers to the provinces by billions of dollars, which will increase disparities among the provinces.
Madam Speaker, I must say I am disappointed in the remarks just made by the Parliamentary Secretary, who looks at the fight against the deficit as his Government's sole priority, without any consideration for an employment situation that remains urgent in many of our provinces. In seven provinces, the unemployment rate is still higher than it was in 1981-82 during the recession. I am also disappointed in the attitude taken by the Official Opposition, which is trying to raise all kinds of points of order instead of getting on with the debate on this very important matter.
On that side they are not being serious enough about this, while the Government side is making the fight against the deficit its sole priority, without any consideration for the impact on Canadian men and women of the regional disparities existing today in this country. Madam Speaker, perhaps this explains why today in the Province of Quebec, for instance, the polls indicate that the Conservatives have fallen to the lowest level ever, 17 per cent, at the same time as the New Democratic Party rose to 34 per cent in polls throughout the country and 34 per cent as well in the Province of Quebec, the highest level we have ever reached since World War II.
Madam Speaker, I want to remind my friends in all Parties how this happened in history. During World War II the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, which preceded the New Democratic Party, brought every kind of pressure to bear on
March 19, 1987

the then Liberal Government to promote a social policy, a welfare policy, a full employment policy after the war. All Canadians had been disillusioned by the great depression. They wanted to make sure that, once the war was over, our country would be looking forward to a much more promising future than what they had lived through in the 1930s. Sure enough, they turned to the New Democratic Party because throughout World War II the CCF had been the only Party to claim that governments must serve the people, not major financial interests, not major companies, not the Canadian elite only.
Well, Madam Speaker, the pressure exerted by the CCF was so effective that, although we had only a handful of Members in the House of Commoms at that time, Canadian public opinion expressed itself through polls and all sorts of indications, to the point where they prompted the Government of former Prime Minister Mackenzie King to come up with a full employment policy.
The Liberal Government responded to the general wish for a Government which would show some concern for the needs of the people. For instance, the family allowance program was introduced, and so were some of the major social programs which now provide some support for all Canadians. It was only three years after the Second World War that the hospital insurance program came into being, and it too was due to the leadership shown by the CCF in Saskatchewan.
I am recalling these historical events, Madam Speaker, to reply to the Parliamentary Secretary who says, just like the Government did in 1983, that the priorities of the Canadian population, as expressed in the polls and as stated by the New Democratic Party, are of no interest whatsoever to the Conservative Government. Instead of wanting to follow the example of the former Liberal Government in the forties, instead of wanting to change the policies of the Government to develop a full employment policy, a policy to eliminate regional disparities among the provinces, a policy to maintain social programs, the Parliamentary Secretary is saying that he supports the policy of fighting the deficit and doing nothing to meet the other needs of Canadians. Obviously, the deficit is important. Everyone knows it, but unemployment is also important, as is the fight against regional disparities. It is in this context, Madam Speaker, that I want to make some comments on Bill C-44.
I would like to remind all my friends in the House of Commons and all Canadians who are watching this debate that, with this Bill, the Government is imposing a solution after failing in all its efforts to achieve a consensus among the provinces. There were indeed many meetings. That there was no agreement with the provinces is mostly due to the fact that the Government wanted to save money at their expense. Finally, this solution had to be forced on them.
This Bill brings about a technical change to the provincial equalization program. It will provide $175 million a year to the provinces and the Minister of Finance has promised that this will apply for one year.
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
But after having made all those promises on television, in public, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) changed his views, and now he will be putting that change in place over a two year period.
Madam Speaker, in view of the announcement made the other day by the Minister and in Bill C-44, I accept that they will not require a refund of overpayments made to provinces and that were discovered following the 1985 census. This means Quebec will not have to repay certain monies received under the equalization program without being entitled to them because its population had been over-estimated but that now have to be adjusted. But in the same breath, the Government insists that Quebec waive its claim to certain adjustments in the order of $100 million for fiscal year 1985-86, and I think for 1986-87.
It is also true, Madam Speaker, that in Quebec the other technical changes that are very important have to do with the payment checking program for established program funding and equalization payments. There seems to be very little time allowed for checking the figures, to make sure they are accurate. If there are indeed errors, the Canadian Government refuses to change its calculations. Quebec would like to be allowed a three to six months period after the final evaluation, in order that the provinces may check the figures. The technical change has not yet been made, but hopefully, after the representations made before the committee, that technical change can be made.
Madam Speaker, I note particularly the fact that the equalization scheme pursued by the Government is at odds with the commitments entrenched in the Constitution that equalization must be used to remove disparities between provinces and ensure that each province can provide comparable levels of public services at comparable levels of taxation.
Madam Speaker, I see in the Estimates for 1987-1988 an increase of only 2 per cent in the equalization payments and other payments with regard to that area. However, Madam Speaker, here are the figures as they appear in the Estimates, Part I, relating to government expenditures: it is indicated in the table, on page 40, that the fiscal transfer payments will increase from $5,768 billions in the 1986-1987 Main Estimates to $5.9 billions in 1987-1988. The difference is $134 millions or 2.3 per cent. That is all. Now, Madam Speaker, we have just heard someone describing the situation prevailing in Saskatchewan. We are familiar with the difficult situation in Alberta due to the decrease in oil prices and the problems with that industry. One wonders whether a mere 2.3 per cent increase in equalization payments will be enough to make up for increasing disparities in our country, a country where the unemployment rate in southern Ontario is down to 5 per cent and even to 4 per cent in some areas like Toronto, Kitchener and Waterloo, while it stays higher in seven other provinces, an unemployment rate like the one that prevailed during the 1981-82 recession. Will such a small increase be enough? I do not think it will.

March 19, 1987
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
I would also like to quote, Madam Speaker, from the French version of the summary of the Government Expenditure Plan regarding fiscal transfer payments: Fiscal transfer payments include equalization payments, subsidies under the Constitution Acts, Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer and Reciprocal Taxation. Equalization payments, accounting for some 95 per cent of these transfers, are unconditional payments to provinces to raise, to some standard level, the per capita revenue-raising capacity of lower-income provinces, in order that they can provide their residents with reasonable levels of public services at reasonable levels of taxation. The standard is determined by the average fiscal capacity of the five provinces of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.
In fact, what the Government says is that he wants to raise, to some standard level, the revenue-raising capacity of the provinces, in order that they can provide their residents with reasonable levels of public services at reasonable levels of taxation. Now, I would like to quote Section 36(2) of the Constitution Act, 1981 according to which Parliament and the government of Canada are committed to the principle of making equalization payments to ensure that provincial government have sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. There is no double standard to the Constitution; it is a comparable standard for everybody.
When a province like Newfoundland levies a sales tax of 11 or 12 per cent while in Ontario this same tax is only 7 per cent, would you say they are comparable? I would say no. If differences of income tax rates are as high as 40 percent from one province to another, can we say that personal incomes tax rates are comparable in Canada? Again, I say they are not.
If the provincial Minister of Finance suggests that Newfoundland is on the verge of bankrupcy because of income tax problems, can we, in all fairness, compare the situation of his province to that of Ontario where the liberal government has just received actually a heavenly gift of one billion dollars which has been already spent on gifts, new expenditures, new programs and so on? The premier of Ontario has just been visiting in Ottawa where he announced a $10 million grant to the Cardiology Research Centre at the Civic Hospital in my riding. It is a welcome announcement indeed but could the premier of Newfoundland do the same? The answer is no because Newfoundland does not have the same fiscal capacity as Ontario. Why is the commitment made in our Constitution apparently ignored by this government in its description of the fiscal transfer payment program for the 1987-88 fiscal year? Indeed, instead of providing public services at a roughly comparable level of quality the government now changes that commitment so that that level of quality be set according to an established standard. If I may, this is what they say in English and I quote:

Equalization payments-are unconditional payments to provinces to raise, to
some standard level, the per capita revenue-raising capacity of lower-income
provinces, in order that they can provide their residents with reasonable levels
of public services at reasonable levels of taxation.
Now, Madam Speaker, does that mean reasonable as compared with Bangladesh, as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) said a while ago, or as compared with all other Canadian jurisdictions? That is the question we must ask ourselves. And the Government would indeed answer that "reasonable" means as compared with England, perhaps with France, perhaps with underdeveloped countries, but certainly not with all the other provinces.
In fact, the Conservative Government, in power now for only two and a half years, fails to honour an undertaking that all three political Parties had solemnly taken during the Constitutional debate of 1981 and 1982.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, I wish to say that we recognize, in our Party, how difficult it is to achieve full employment. I have just read this morning's editorial in The Globe and Mail, which states very clearly the economic performance of the Manitoba Government, showing how the NDP Government has reduced the unemployment rate and brought the growing rate of the economy to be the highest projected of all provinces for the fiscal year 87-88. I could always refer to the economic record of the New Democratic Governement in the Yukon Territory. About a year or a year and a half ago, they inherited a situation with an unemployment rate close to 20 per cent. Within a year, they reduced this rate by half. These, Madam Speaker, are the results of a real policy of full employment.
Last weekend, Madam Speaker, the NPD held its convention. I know that many Quebec voters watched us since it was held in Montreal for the first time. Yes, a great many of them did. I say to the Parliamentary Secretary-many of his constituents voted NDP because of our efforts in the province of Quebec.


Pierre Blais: Sixty-five delegates!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Yes. There were over a hundred delegates from the province of Quebec.


Pierre Blais: Sixty-five!


Michael Morris Cassidy: Including the delegates representing affiliated unions and other delegates. Now, Madam Speaker-


Pierre Blais: How many delegates from Bellechasse?


Michael Morris Cassidy: I emphasize the fact that our party has now established a beachhead in the province of Quebec and that we will hold onto it. We are now one of the three major parties at the national level because our support in Quebec in terms of
March 19, 1987

polls, Madam Speaker, is twice as high as that of the Conservative Party. In fact, I think it is a good thing for this country that the Conservatives have taken a foothold in Quebec and that in spite of their bad results in polls both at present and in the future, in 1988-89, some of the Conservative members will be re-elected at the next election. Some of them. Maybe five, maybe ten, I don't know, but some of them. They will form a group with NDP members who will also be elected in the province of Quebec for the first time since the CCF member from Quebec was elected in the forties.
And, Madam Speaker, I said to my honourable friend the Parliamentary Secretary that it is a good thing that the Liberal Party will have some members elected in Western Canada at the next election, after so many years without any representation. The NDP will have seats in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, as well as the Conservative Party. It is very important, however, given that three major parties are coming before the people, that we emphasize full employment and a commitment to eliminate regional disparities and that we elect in Canada a government that will ensure a job to all Canadian women and men who are willing and able to work, and that the federal Government be committed to achieve full employment in this country.
As a conclusion, Madam Speaker, I will say that if the other parties, the old parties, are not prepared to make that commitment as the Mackenzie King government did during the forties, they will fall into oblivion since it is our party, the New Democratic Party, that will take office in order to give the Canadian people what they expect from a government.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments. The Hon. Member for Quebec East (Mr. Tremblay).


Mr. Tremblay (Quebec East):: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) said in the beginning of his remarks that equalization payments to the Province of Quebec had been cut. Obviously, he does not fully understand the substance of Bill C-44. It is not true, Madam Speaker, and I cannot see why the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre does not realize it. He should read the bill more carefully. He would then see by himself that the Province of Quebec got equalization payments amounting to $2.68 billion in 1986-87, that will go up to $2,783 billion in 1987-88. This represents a net increase of $103 million. Could the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre explain to this House what made him base his remarks on such a false premise?


Michael Morris Cassidy: I appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member for Quebec East (Mr. Tremblay). The figures I have before me-I asked a question to the Hon. Minister of Finance about them on March 2-show that equalization payments made to the Province of Quebec would be cut by $71 million and that the province would see its total transfer and equalization entitlements increase by $7 million only. During Question Period on March 2, I asked the Minister of Finance how he
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements
could justify that with a 6.6 percent unemployment rate, the Province of Ontario would get a $550 million increase on transfers and other federal payments while the Province of Quebec, with an unemployment rate over 10 percent, would only get $7 million more, which represents a $71 million decrease in equalization. I do not have all the details, but these are the figures I have.
Madam Speaker, since the Hon. Member has asked about the impact on Quebec, I could also mention the fact that Quebec is suffering and will actually be suffering a loss of approximately $30 million because of the fact that the Government has specifically excluded the duty on softwood lumber in its equalization calculations. Indeed, as a result of this decision to exclude the duty on softwood lumber, the Province of Quebec will lose $30 million in that area alone.


Maurice Tremblay: Madam Speaker, just to add to the seemingly incomplete data which our colleague from Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) has in his possession, concerning equalization payments and other transfer programs, the federal Government's contribution will total over $8.6 billion for the Province of Quebec in 1987-1988.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Of course, Madam Speaker, it is a tougher proposition to have a battle of figures in the House. I quoted the figures that I thought were reasonable, according to the data provided by the Governement. I asked, and I am asking once again the following question: How is it, if the Government is committed to reducing disparities, that Quebec is getting such a minimal increase? I gave an aggregate figure of $7 million for fiscal transfers or equalization payments while Ontario will get a $550 million increase when we know that economic growth in Canada is mainly concentrated in the south. I already asked the question: How is it that according to Statistics Canada figures for the period going from January 1986 to January 1987, on the 137,000 new jobs created in Canada, only 5,000 were to be found in nine provinces while the 132,000 others went to Ontario? Is this the kind of fairness the Government is looking for? How can Quebec and the other provinces overcome the problem of disparities? How will they find enough tax revenues to pay for all the necessary programs and ensure their economic development if the jobs created are all concentrated in one province only, namely the Southern part of Ontario? This is the question. The Finance Minister often tells us that he is committed to achieve fairness among provinces and all the rest. But people won't judge only by his words but also by the facts. And when I look at the performance of this Government, I see that the bulk of the economic growth taking place at the present time in the country is concentrated in Southern Ontario. Surely this development is to be welcomed but that doesn't compensate for the fact that the recession continues in the rest of the country. This is unacceptable.

March 19, 1987
Message from the Senate


Mr. Gagnon:: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) kept talking about deficit reduction not being important. He seems to be forgetting something; that is, fiscal responsibility. He said what was important was the unemployment rate. I would like to draw some comparisons between Canada and Australia. Australia has a prime rate of 18.25 per cent. Canada has a prime rate of 8.75 per cent. Over the last year the unemployment rate in Australia increased by 0.4 per cent. The unemployment rate in Canada has decreased by .1 per cent. What I am trying to say is we must have fiscal responsibility. The NDP think that if we vote the Socialists in it will be paradise. Australia did it and they are suffering. Unemployment is going up and their interest rate is more than twice ours. That is my comment and 1 hope the people of Canada understand that.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member. I would point out to him, of course, that when Canadians go to the polls in the next federal election they will make their judgment not on the basis of what is happening in Australia but on the basis of the performance of the Government of Canada. The opinion polls have the Conservatives at the lowest level of any Government in power in this country since they began taking polls. That suggests to me that Canadians are profoundly dissatisfied with the performance of the Government. They have reason to be. The Government has not been fair in ensuring that the people of Atlantic Canada, Quebec and western Canada get a fair deal in the distribution of economic opportunity. 1 do not think our country can work effectively if the message from the Government in the next election is, yes, we created jobs, jobs, jobs, but all in southern Ontario. If you do not have a job then get in your car or on a train and go to southern Ontario because that is where the work is. That is not good enough. I think people in Saskatchewan, Chicoutimi, Newfoundland, and the interior of British Columbia have a right to share in the economic wealth of this country and not have it all concentrated in one region.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), a very short question.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I am sad to have to say that last week Saskatchewan officially became a have-not province. That just shows that the Devine Government has not been doing a very divine job of managing the economy. After so many years of Alan Blakeney and the NDP we were a have province with balanced budgets year after year. For 11 years fiscal responsibility was the word. That was also the situation during the Ross Thatcher Liberal years and the CCF years of Tommy Douglas. All of a sudden we are a have-not province because of a massive deficit of SI.2 billion. That just shows how irresponsible Conservatives can be once they are in office. I am sure you wanted me to share that very sad news with the House. We will of course take the money but I am very sad we had to do it in that way.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Madam Speaker, I appreciate my hon. friend's comments and share his regret. I particularly share his regret over the incompetent way in which the Devine Government promised its way back to power and then proved to be ineffective in resolving the economic problems of that province.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Mr. Wilson, seconded by Mr. Crombie, moves that Bill C-44, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing the House that the Senate has passed, without amendment, Bill C-6, an act to implement an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on offshore petroleum resource management and revenue sharing and to make related and consequential amendments.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Philip Derek Lewis: Point of order, Madam Speaker. There have been discussions among the Parties and I think you will find there is agreement that the following motion be put to the House and agreed to by all Parties. Therefore, I move, seconded by the Minister of State for Privatization (Mrs. McDougall):
That, notwithstanding any Standing or Special Order of this House, when the order for the consideration of the business of supply is called, on the final allotted day for the supply period ending March 26, 1987, the Supplementary Estimates "A", for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, shall be reported or be deemed to have been reported back to the House by the Standing Committee on Agriculture;
March 19, 1987

That, on that day, immediately following the disposal of the opposition motion, the Supplementary Estimates "C", 1986-87 and the interim supply for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1988, and any Bills based thereon, every question necessary to dispose of the Supplementary Estimates "A", 1987-88, and any Bill or Bills based thereon, be put to the House, forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Philip Derek Lewis: Madam Speaker, it is 12 minutes to five and Private Members' Business starts at 5 p.m. In view of the progress we have made today on Bill C-44, I think you will find there is agreement to suspend the sitting until five o'clock to allow the Hon. Member whose motion will be discussed to attend the House and commence at five o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The proceedings of the House are suspended until 5 p.m.
At 4.48 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 5 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 5 p.m., the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   THE SENATE AMENDMENT TO CONSTITUTION ACTS 1867-1982-REFORM
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing a measure to amend the Constitution Acts 18671982, in order to reform the Senate by providing, in particular:
1.	that, 50 per cent of the number of Senators in each province be appointed by the Governor in Council and that the respective appointees also be residents of the province for which they are appointed;
2.	that, 50 per cent of the number of Senators in each province be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governors in Council;
3.	that, the tenure of Senate appointments be for the duration of a Parliament;
4.	that, all Senators may be re-appointed;
Senate Reform
5.	that, when a provincial election is called, the seats of all Senators of that province appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council be vacated and that the said Senators may be re-appointed by the Lieutenant-Governor in Council after the provincial election;
6.	that, where a Bill is not adopted by the Senate within ten sitting days after its receipt from the House of Commons, the Senate may require that the Bill be submitted to a joint conference committee of the two Chambers;
7.	that, where a Bill is not adopted by the House of Commons within fifteen
days after its receipt from the Senate, the House of Commons may require that the Bill be submitted to a joint conference committee of the two Chambers;	.
8.	that, each House appoint seven members to the joint conference committee, and that the representation of the House of Commons reflect the proportion of the number of seats of each political party in that Chamber;
9.	that, where a conference committee proposal fails to be adopted by both Houses, the original bill be withdrawn;
and that this House urge the Senate and the Legislative Assemblies of all provinces to pass similar resolutions.
He said: I am delighted to have the opportunity to deal with this motion with you in the chair, Madam Speaker. Two other Members of this House, the Hon. Member for Edmonton South (Mr. Edwards) and the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor), have dealt with Private Members' Motions on the Senate. A number of my other colleagues in the House during those discussions have made comments and have spoken on the subject, as have many provincial legislatures and, indeed, the public. There has been a great deal written and a great number of comments regarding the cause of Senate reform. The thrust of most of the recommendations has focused on the so-called "triple E" concept that the Senate should be made effective, equal and elected. I want to endorse most strongly the call for effectiveness and for equality, particularly on a provincial basis. However, as you will see in a moment, Madam Speaker, I want to deal with a Senate which would be appointed.
The motion I put forward departs only from the comments made by colleagues in that they ask for an elected Senate. I propose an appointed Senate. If the only purpose of a geographically equal Senate were to balance this country's regional and population-based interest, I would probably go along with the idea of an elected Senate. However, my concept of the Senate goes beyond providing that particular balance to add the function of providing a Chamber of sober second thought, which was the initial intent. I feel that appointing the Senators will remove them from the passions and partisanship which is inevitable in the running for election.
I want to deal with the motion I put forward in some particular detail. First, I made the point that 50 per cent of the Senate should be appointed by the Governor-in-Council. I left out of my motion details such as how much land appointees should own in their particular area. I have said they should be residents of the province for which they are appointed. I purposely left this vague, because in a motion such as this, obviously, the Government would have some ideas. However, I think it is abundantly clear that if we were to appoint in the present manner only half of the Senate, the other half to be appointed by another group, we would find that those persons appointed to the Senate would tend to be legislators first. I say

March 19, 1987
Senate Reform
this without rancor and certainly without envy. Elaving been a very successful bagman for a political Party, having been the former president of a political Party, having been an organizer or in fact being an organizer for a political Party, would not necessarily be sufficient background to be named a Senator. The fact is that in the Senate I perceive, and which I support, there would necessarily be legislators first, and the Governor in Council, I think we would find as we go through this, would need to appoint men and women whose function would be legislative in the first instance.
The second point I make is that the other half of the Senate would be appointed by the Lieutenant-Governors of each province. Once again, I have purposely left the numbers vague. I think having a minimum number, for example, in Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and those province which now have minimums, is something which can be dealt with by negotiation and by the Government of the day in consultation with the other provinces. In countries I could name, the representatives in the upper House do not vary in number that greatly despite the variables in the provinces or regions of the country which send them to the Senate. The United States, for example, has the same number of Senators in Rhode Island as it does in California. In Germany there are two Members of the upper House from the smallest of its states and only five from the largest. So some balance could be arrived at which would be fair.
In the concept I put before you, Madam Speaker, the Senators might well include a Cabinet Minister without portfolio in a province, a former Premier and very likely someone who was very closely involved with the politics of that province because he or she would be in the Upper House of Canada to deal with their regional responsibilities and they would be performing a specific duty.
The third item has to deal with both Houses and that is that the tenure of Senate appointments would be for the duration of a Parliament. There is no question that the Senators could be reappointed by Parties of either stripe. In the case of some appointments, I am sure the Governments of the provinces, or the Government of Canada, in appointing persons, might want to take from areas of business expertise certain members to put in the Senate. If they did, provision would have to be made, in my concept of the Senate, to allow for an extended leave of absence. It would be hardly fair for a corporate counsel of a major firm to be put in the Senate for one term and then expected to go back on the street. The likelihood would be that some form of leave of absence would be necessary and, as I indicated, all Senators could be reappointed.
Fifth, when a provincial election is called, the seats of all the Senators from the province in which an election is called would be vacated. The new government would appoint the Senators from that province. Rightly or wrongly, whether one agrees with the politics of the Parties I speak of, we have had in the Parliament of Canada, in the upper House, since-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order.


John Raymond Ellis: Do I not have 20 minutes? I just have 10? I am only half way through. Perhaps I could have a little extra time because I thought I had 20 minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Raymond Ellis: I thank my colleagues. My point is that whether or not one agrees with the politics of particular governments, since Confederation there have only been two Parties in the upper House, the Liberals and Conservatives. The numbers of Liberals or Conservatives depended upon the tenure of the Government in power.
Until recently there were three Governments-the Parti Quebecois in Quebec, the New Democratic Party in Manitoba, and the Social Credit Party in British Columbia-which at no time had a political say in the affairs of the Government of Canada. Whether or not one agrees with their politics, they were refused the right to have spokesmen in the upper House of Canada.
As part of my concept of the upper House, I want to deal with how the Senate would actually function. I state in my motion that where a Bill is not adopted by the Senate within ten sitting days after its receipt from the House of Commons, the Senate may require that the Bill be submitted to a joint conference committee of the two Chambers. Today, a Bill that is passed by the House of Commons will go to the Senate where it may sit interminably. Conversely, a Bill originating in the Senate may come to the House of Commons and sit here interminably. There has not been an effective refusal of a Commons Bill in the Senate for many years, and the reverse is true.
It seems to me that if both Houses are to do their job they should be in a position to seriously criticize and amend either's proposed legislation. However, there must be a provision that if a Bill goes to the Senate and sits there for a specific time and is not dealt with, it can come back to the House for final passage. As well, the reverse must be true.
If a Bill is sent back from one House to the other, there should be a joint conference committee of the two Chambers, made up of senior members who would, in their wisdom and experience, deal with the Bill and send it back to both Houses to either be passed after that joint consideration or left to die. In areas where such a procedure works, it is very rare that a Bill is allowed to die. There may be some changes but eventually the Bills are passed.
In conclusion, I have proposed a suggestion for a Senate. I do not favour abolishing the Senate because I believe it protects Canadians in many ways. I like the idea of a Senate that is more representative of the regions but I oppose the suggestion of an elected Senate. I believe the original thought of our forefathers in having the Senate above elections is worth
March 19, 1987

while and my suggestion to the House is that there are ways of appointing Senators, providing there are rules that makes it work to the benefit of all Canadians.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to address this resolution this afternoon, essentially on my own. I am speaking from the Liberal side of the House and I do sit in the front benches. I am briefed and committed to the policy resolutions of our Party which I intend to share with the House, and I am committed to the views of our leader. However, I want to give some personal reactions because I believe I can make as good a contribution to the debate in that way.
The fundamental problem with the Senate, as I see it, is a problem of legitimacy. The Senate has a tremendous power that is legally and constitutionally the equivalent of the power we have in this Chamber.


John Raymond Ellis: Ostensible.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: My friend, the mover of the motion, is saying that the power is ostensible. The power is real. The power is constitutionally valid. No legislation in Canada can be enacted unless the other place deals with it and adopts it. Therefore, the power is real, but the legitimacy is missing because Canadians know and Senators know, and many of them have said that it would be unacceptable for the Senators to use power in the same way that we do so proudly and defensively in this place.
We make decisions, we speak for the Canadian people, and we have the credentials to prove it. Our membership in the House is established in such a way that we represent the people of Canada and I suggest that we would find it difficult to accept the negation of our will by the other place, even though it is proper to do that constitutionally.
That creates a dilemma for them in the other place. I imagine they want to perform their function but the only way they can do so under the present set-up might cancel the work that was done in this House. There is something significantly wrong with the Senate and I believe it is its legitimacy.
I do not believe this resolution addresses fully the problem of legitimacy. The mover of the motion mentioned at the outset that he did not want to deal with the proportionate representation by Senators. I appreciate that he is choosing not to address that, but I suggest that it is an essential component of a Senate reform package.
I want to talk about that for a moment because otherwise there is not much point in trying to market some of the ideas dealt with in this resolution directly. The Senate needs reform along the lines proposed by our Party at its national convention, which is that Senators should come from each province in equal numbers. That may shock the Hon. Member opposite if he did not know that our Party passed that resolution. But it does state that the Liberal Party of Canada has committed itself to an elected Senate with equal representation from each province.
Senate Reform
This means that if Yukon, if it achieves provincial status, or little Prince Edward Island, will have the same strength in the other place as Ontario and Quebec. We are making this proposal to point out the need in this country for regions to feel that they have a voice here. This is particularly important in view of the behaviour of the present Government in relation to regional development or regional priorities. The Government committed itself to regional programs. It came to office and is awarding government contracts and business on a political basis. I only need remind Members about the decision on the CF-18.


Mr. Daubney:: Relevance.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I think it is very relevant. I believe that people feel if they had an equal voice per province in the Senate that type of abuse could be stopped. They cannot look to the Senate to stop it now because it has a legitimacy problem. If the members of the Senate were chosen on an equal basis by the regions, as the Liberal Party recommends, I think people would look to the Senate. If there was a defense for what the Government was doing then the defense could be made in the Senate, chosen the way I have recommended.
When we look at the principle of representation in this House, which is "rep by pop", we have to ask ourselves why Prince Edward Island should have the same number of members as Ontario, and will it work. We think it should have, and we think it would work. Perhaps the best way in which I could demonstrate this is by using the example of the United States where Rhode Island has the same number of Senators as does California and New York. It does work. It would be an effective way of showing the Senate to Canadians as a place that has a legitimate right to intervene in our procedure. Canadians would accept its basis on that score.
I now wish to turn to the second point, which is whether Senators should be chosen on any basis other than on an election basis. Under the present system they are all chosen by the Prime Minister, by the Governor in Council. The recommendation in the resolution before us is that half of each province's delegation should be chosen as it is now and the other half should be chosen, in effect, by the provincial Government. Our resolution calls for direct election.
I want to try to convince the Hon. Member of the advantages of direct election. I heard his argument against it when he addressed the question. I am afraid that in the type of Senate he has proposed the temptation of a province with a desperate problem, with a perspective on national affairs, would be to send a delegated group to Ottawa knowing that they would be replaced from time to time as elections occur. This delegated group would be sent to Ottawa to speak for the perspective of the Government of the day governing that province. I can see a provincial Government using this forum to give some of its players a chance to strut their stuff on the national scene, to improve their credentials, perhaps for

March 19, 1987
Senate Reform
leadership of a party, or to improve their credentials for running for office in a riding which would be open in a future provincial election, or something of that nature. In other words, with this type of formula, especially with the reappointment provision, I can see Senators coming here under this procedure with a special agenda in mind.
One thing that can be said for the Senators who are chosen under our present system is that when they come here they tend to come for life. Of course, there have been one or two exceptions, but they tend to come for life. If they lose interest along the way and take an early retirement, while retaining their seat in the other place-retiring in the sense of their continuing contribution to public affairs-at least they do not have the other agenda which is: "Boy, as soon as the election comes along I'm running for a seat in Prince Edward Island", or a seat in Ontario.
1 would like to see Senators come here from their provinces in the national interest. I do not think this motion achieves that. I am worried that provincial appointees will not rise above a provincial perspective. I am worried that the knowledge that they will not be reappointed, or may not be reappointed, will cause them to think ahead about their next career. Nothing is more fair than having an election to choose a spokesperson for the people of the country. Therefore I prefer to see the direct election of Senators, which is what my Party recommends.
Finally, I wish to address one other aspect of the question concerning the legitimacy of the Senate. I do not think that there should be equal authority as between the two Chambers. I think that if we move to an elected Senate the dispersal of power, in the type of checks and balances system we have, would weaken the national government in a way that would be against the national interest. I think a reformed Senate should have less authority, even with elected Senators. They should have less authority than those who are elected to this place which chooses the Government and to which the Government is accountable. This idea is not part of my Party's resolution. It is my own thinking with respect to how we would fill in the blanks. So I would like to see them have some sort of suspensory authority by which they could hold up legislation for a while.
In that connection I would like to turn to the idea that 10 days or 15 days is enough, as this motion proposes, for the Senate to gather its points of view together, and, failing to do so, then have a conference. I do not think that is realistic. I think the suspensory period should be for 90 days or 120 days, or something of that nature. In any event, it should be longer than 10 days.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure today to participate in this debate on yet another scheme for Senate reform. We spend enough time in this Chamber gilding lilies, we are now apparently reduced to gilding weeds. I say that since the resolution before us essentially envisages an expansion of the existing powers which
the Senate now has, that is one thing members of my Party could not contemplate under any circumstances.
The previous speaker spoke of a Liberal policy resolution for an elected Senate. He went into some detail as to the virtues of such a scheme. In listening to him I think that each and every one of us was surely asking ourselves, and would ask him had we the opportunity, what possible significance a Liberal Party policy resolution-almost a contradiction in terms, as I am sure my hon. colleagues will note-could possibly have for the deliberations of this Chamber or, indeed, for the agenda of the country.
I think it was last week that we had a resolution before the Chamber that corresponded quite closely to a Liberal Party policy resolution that had been debated and voted on at that Party's convention last fall. If I recall correctly there were some 20-odd, perhaps close to 30, members of that Party who voted against the position of the Party as set out in the policy resolution. There were about four brave souls who saw fit to uphold the position in this Chamber that their Party had adopted in their policy convention. So much for the relevance of Liberal Party policy resolutions. After all, we are not here to discuss an elected Senate, which we can conveniently and perhaps with some pleasure dispose of as a viable contribution to Canada's constitutional debate at another time.
Essentially, what we are looking at is a resolution which, if it were to pass, would pit tradition and the Constitution against each other, even in a worse way than the Constitution has already been pitted against our most valued democratic traditions. This was the most unfortunate consequence of the 1982 constitutional entrenchment process. I say that because until we had the 1982 Constitution Act Canada's democratic traditions, which were inherited from the mother of Parliaments, Westminster, transplanted and grown ever more vigorous in the free and democratic soil of our country, stipulated a role for the Senate that was appropriate to the way in which the Senate is formed and the way in which it, if I can use the term ever so loosely, is regenerated. Up until 1982 it was clear to anyone who studied political science and to anyone who understood the democratic traditions of our country that the Senate did not have the power or the ability to impede or prevent the House of Commons from passing legislation. Of course, there would be those who will say that it is not the House of Commons, it is merely the Government of the day. Let them say that. For as I now sit on the opposition benches let me say that I will forever uphold the right of the Government, any Government, to legislate and to bring into law any project of legislation which it can persuade the majority in the House of Commons to pass.
In 1982 the Constitution was essentially silent on that lack of power with the Senate and some bold spirits, perhaps going against the democratic traditions of Canada, have argued that the Senate now in fact has the power to impede legislation. My hon. friend, the Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), stated
March 19, 1987

that the Senate was lacking legitimacy. It is now ever more lacking in legitimacy and was even before the last Liberal Government started its rampage of patronage appointments which contributed to its well-merited defeat in the last election.
I would even make the argument that the continued existence of the upper House is essentially un-Canadian because ever since Confederation in 1867 we in Canada, through the provincial legislatures, have followed a tradition of abolishing upper houses. Today we have reached the point where only one upper House remains, that being at the federal level. I, of course, would be glad to see that upper House abolished in the due course of time.
It seems that the resolution envisages something along the American model. I might point out that that which the Hon. Member for York Centre was proposing as a Liberal alternative was also modelled along the constitutional lines of the United States of America which has an equal number of Senators from each state. I ask all Members of this House and all Canadians to consider whether these imported models are relevant to the Canadian situation, or whether we as Canadians would not be much better advised, rather than striking out into uncharted waters and unknown territory, to continue the tradition which has been established at the provincial level and abolish this relic of history, the upper House, which has for so long haunted us and which now seems to have a very real danger of impeding the democratic will of the country.
In proposing this motion the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis) said that the Senate has protected Canadians. I wish a speaker in this House would come up with a concrete example which contains any degree of agreement on other than the most slender of partisan pretences. The fact is that, be the power of appointment with the provincial governments or with the federal Government, it is still a patronage power of appointment. Nothing in this resolution would lay upon Senators any responsibility to attend and participate in committee meetings.
I would like to take a moment to praise those members of the Senate who do attend and participate in committee meetings. Many of them make a valuable contribution. However, that does not mean that the institution itself should persist unchanged.
The alternative of provincial patronage might seem satisfactory to some. It would, after all, involve a distribution, a devolution if you like, of the patronage powers. These are the usual arguments that we have heard for the Senate alternatives that come up. Unfortunately, although some of them have a certain mathematical elegance, they overwhelmingly lack the characteristic of democratic participation except, of course, when an elected Senate is called for. All those arguments and schemes essentially ignore the terrible opportunities for conflict and dissension which could occur if there were an elected upper chamber setting itself against the will of the people as expressed in the election of the House of Commons.
Senate Reform
I am confident that this resolution will go down to defeat. It always interests me to see another scheme for Senate reform but, overwhelmingly, this is not what Canadians want. If any Government were to put the fate of the Senate to Canadians in a referendum, we would have a unicameral Parliament in this country.


Mrs. Anne Blouin (Montmorency-Orleans):: Madam Speaker, the resolution proposed today by the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis) is a most interesting one. It reflects the Hon. Member's abiding interest in parliamentary reform and the depth of his thinking on this subject.
This resolution could open the doors of the Senate to improved regional representation by allowing the provincial Governments to appoint half of the senators representing them. The concept of the Senate as a "Council of Confederation" is not a new one. Many Senate reform proposals, including the more ambitious ones, have recommended some form of provincial representation. The pros and cons of this idea would merit careful consideration by this House, and although that is not the purpose of my speech today, I am sure one of my colleagues will raise this issue.
Madam Speaker, today I would like to draw the attention of the House to the second aspect of the proposal now being considered. It concerns the legislative process proposed by the Hon. Member and the power the Senate would have as a result.
According to the resolution, when a Bill is adopted by one Chamber and voted down by the other, Parliament would set up a mediation committee consisting of representatives of both Chambers and based on the proportion of seats each party has in the House of Commons. The proposal by the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings implies that the committee would examine the Bill with a view to either smoothing out or reflecting the differences between Senators and Members and reaching a common position. The Hon. Member's proposal concludes, and I quote:
That, where a conference committee proposal fails to be adopted by both
Houses, the original bill be withdrawn.
It follows, Madam Speaker, that this would confirm the Senate's veto right over all actions of Parliament, as stated in the Constitution Act, 1867, a veto right that is no longer exercised today.
This constitutes the originality of the Hon. Member's proposal. None of the major Senate reform plans over the last twenty years recommends maintaining the absolute veto right of a Senate appointed either by the provinces, the federal Government or both. To those in favour of an elected Senate, only the proposal released by the Government of Prince Edward Island in 1983, confirms the legislative powers exercised by the Senate since 1867 while maintaining the Senate's absolute veto right.
None of the parliamentary proposals, including those by the senators themselves, and none of the federal Government's

March 19, 1987
Senate Reform
proposals have suggested that all the Senate's powers should be preserved. In fact, they recommended restricting those powers.
In its 1972 report the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada maintained practically unchanged the current system of appointment and the right of the Senate to study proposed legislation. However it did limit the Senate veto to imposing a six-month delay on any bill which would not have the full support of the Upper House. Then the House of Commons would simply have had to pass a new bill to reverse the unfavourable Senate decision and thus get the legislative process rolling again. On this question, Madam Speaker, Hon. Members and senators of the committee concluded:
In the case of the Senate a curbing of its veto power would, paradoxically, strengthen it, and do so without weakening the House of Commons. It would increase the possibilities of confrontation, but avoid the perpetuation of deadlock by ultimately giving the House of Commons its way.
Under the 1978 bill on constitutional reform, the famous Bill C-60, it was proposed to turn the Senate into a House of the Federation, half it members being appointed by the House of Commons, the other half by the various legislative assemblies. This measure is not far removed from the Hon. Member's resolution. However it takes a totally different approach with respect to the absolute veto which would apply exclusively to the approval of appointments to the Supreme Court and senior positions of certain federal organizations. On most other issues the Senate would have had only a 60-day suspensive veto, after which the controversial measure could have been submitted to the Governor General without the House of Commons having to reconsider its position. The only exception had to do with legislation of a linguistic character or of federal-provincial importance. In both cases a Senate refusal could have been reversed only through a favourable vote by two thirds of the House of Commons.
As you can see, Madam Speaker, we are still a long way from the absolute veto over all legislative measures, as advocated by the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings.
In 1980, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs also looked at Senate reform. In its report on some of the aspects of the Canadian Constitution, better known as the Goldenberg-Lamontagne Report, that committee recommended that the Senate be given a suspensive veto of a maximum of six months, after which the House of Commons would have to pass for a second time legislative measures that would have been rejected. According to that committee, such a delay and the requirement for a new debate in the House of Commons would allow the general public to be alerted and to make the necessary pressures to protect their interests.
Furthermore, those senators, who would themselves be the first affected by Senate reform, have rejected the idea of the absolute veto which they now have, for the reason that, in a democratic society, such powers could not be vested in a Chamber whose Members are appointed. The use of the
absolute veto, according to those senators, would be tantamount to violating the will of the people.
More recently, the Joint Special Committee on Senate Reform, in its January 1984 report, came to the conclusion that an elected Senate was the best means of giving the Upper Chamber the required political authority.
That committee, Madam Speaker, also refused to maintain the Senate's absolute veto, even if it were an elected Senate, thereby empowered by the nation's will. In that respect, the committee wrote: "The principal factor in our decision not to accord the Senate an absolute veto was the possibility, if not the probability, of our parliamentary institutions continually becoming deadlocked. We therefore decided that it was wiser and more in keeping with the character of parliamentary government to give the Senate the power to delay but not altogether prevent the adoption of measures voted by the House of Commons."
The report therefore recommended a suspensive veto of a maximum of 120 sitting days. This means that bills rejected by the Senate within the 60 sitting days following their transmission to that House, according to that formula, would have to be passed by the House of Commons a second time. That second adoption could not take place unless at least 60 sitting days has elapsed since the Senate rejected the bill. Therefore, that formula could enable the Senate to delay for a number of months the implementation of a bill it felt was unaceptable, but could not enable it to cripple the Commons and the Government.
However, this did not appear to be enough to eliminate the absolute veto, and the 1984 Joint Committee wanted to further restrict the powers of the Senate by limiting the use of the suspensive veto by exempting all supply bills. On that matter, the Committee wrote: "To give the Senate even a suspensive veto in such a vital area would amount to giving it a disguised power to overturn the government. We therefore propose that the Senate have no power over appropriation bills (including the main, interim and supplementary estimates)."
The only case where the Committee judged it appropriate to maintain the absolute veto of the Senate was the adoption of bills or parts of bills with a linguistic significance. To give the French linguistic and cultural minority a fair over-representation on matters which directly concern them, the Committee had recommended that any legislation of linguistic significance be approved by a majority of all Senators including a majority of the francophone Senators. In the 1984 report, this was the only instance where it was recommended to maintain the absolute veto held by the Senate since 1867.
As you can see, Madam Speaker, each time that Parliament and the Federal Government have examined Senate reform in the last 15 years, it has been recommended that the absolute veto be eliminated. Whether the reform proposed was for an appointed Senate, an assembly of provincial delegations or an elected Chamber, whether it was on the basis of legitimacy or government efficiency, it has in each case been recommended
March 19, 1987

that the powers of the Senate be restricted to a suspensive veto on the great majority of legislative measures. Most proposals by provincial Governments and groups interested in this issue, most if not all of the proposals made in the last 20 years, have recommended the same thing.
Madam Speaker, the motion introduced by the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings is an exception to the rule. By maintaining for the Senate powers identical to those of the House of Commons, this motion puts the appointed Chamber in direct competition with the elected Chamber. In the motion, only trust in the good faith of parliamentarians guarantees that the will of the population as expressed by its elected representatives will prevail in case of a deadlock. I admire this trust of the Hon. Member in the good faith of parliamentarians, but I am afraid that it will not be enough to protect us from frequent stoppages of the legislative process. In my opinion, the proposal would be more credible if it provided for an unblocking mechanism such as a suspensive veto.
I ask my colleagues in this House to reflect on this aspect of the matter before deciding whether to support this motion today.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, I commend the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis) for bringing an extremely important subject to the floor of the House of Commons.
In 1975 the Hon. Member came to speak in my riding, and I have been elected four times since. If he comes to my constituency again and talks about Senate reform, I could get elected another four times.
There is probably no place in Canada which has more of a grass roots, broadly spread desire for changes to the Senate than has the Province of Alberta. This came about because of a bleeding away from that province of some S30 billion as a result of the Liberal National Energy Program. It brought about a sense of anger which is so deep-rooted in Alberta that today it believes the only way in which it will be able to sustain a sense of fairness in Confederation is with a reformed Senate.
Another observation I want to make-and I make it particularly as a result of the comments of the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry)-is that indeed this country is naive if we are of the presumption that there are no problems among our regions. In fact, I find it surprising that a Member from northern Ontario would not want some sense of regional balance in a federal system.
Although my good friend, the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings, would have some differences of view in respect of the specifics of a reformed Senate, I want to start out by saying how much I commend him for introducing the idea in the House of Commons. I believe that political bodies ought to be elected. I know that that view differs from the views of others in the House, and those views are legitimately
Senate Reform
held, but I believe they ought to be elected. As was the case with the Magna Carta some 700 years ago, the whole purpose of politics in a democracy is for the people to have a sense of power. That cannot come about unless the citizens believe that their representatives are elected and that they have a chance to put them in and a chance to throw the rascals out. That sense of power must be present.
Let us take a look at Canada. It is about 4.5 thousand miles wide. Its population is largely concentrated within 100 miles of the American border, a ribbon which stretches from Vancouver Island to Prince Edward Island. There are more Members of Parliament from the urban areas of Toronto and Montreal than there are from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Yukon, Northwest Territories, and two-thirds of British Columbia, northern British Columbia. In other words, two cities outnumber about 75 per cent of Canada's land mass. Surely that signals the need for regional balance in political decision making.
I do not want to recite an old adage which demonstrates triteness, partly because I cannot remember it just now. However, we have all heard that fine saying that if we destroy the cities, the hinterland will develop new cities, and that if we destroy the hinterland, the grasses will grow in our cities. I simply say to you, Madam Speaker, that all that a city is is a processor of the hinterland. It does nothing else except manufacture what it takes from the hinterland. It ensures that what is taken out of the hinterland can be manufactured for resale to those in that area of the country. I do not use the word hinterland in any derogatory way. I am very proud because that is the resource base-the fish, the lumber, the minerals, the like.
.
I believe that if there is a concern that we ought to be reflecting upon today, it is that concern that arises from the void that existed in this country in the mid-1970s because we had no Senate with any effective power. The Government of the day began the process of institutionalizing First Ministers' Conferences. Premiers began to fill that gap that the Senate had or ought to have filled.
The result of the proposed process, as I see it, is that the Senate would simply be appointed by provinces or a federal Government. I hold that that would do away with what I think this country is aching for, namely, a federal system for which the citizens of the country could have and respect. There is a thirst within Canada to want to be Canadian, irrespective of whether one is from New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan or the Territories. We want a federal system that works.
We have heard a lot in western Canada about a "triple E" Senate, one "E" to mean elected. That I accept because I accept that power should be with the people. The other "E" is equal. On that I want to expand for just a moment because I am a product of six years of university in the United States. I recognized that in America little Rhode Island had two

March 19, 1987
Senate Reform
Senators to offset two Senators from California. Great big heavily populated New York had two Senators to offset 500,000 or 600,000 persons in Wyoming which had two Senators.
Frequently in the U.S. people talk about "us" and "we" while Canadians have this all too often tendency to talk about "I" and "them", pointing at each other across the map. Yet I submit there is less difference between a person from Dallas and one from Boston than there is between a person from Edmonton and one from Toronto. Perhaps that reflects the fact that we do not have within any federal institution a sense that we all have some equal partnership in our federation. I believe that equality is also important.
I might add, parenthetically, one other observation, Madam Speaker. Let me refer to United States Senators Dave Church, a former Senator from Idaho, Mike Mansfield, again a former Senator who used to be the Senate majority leader, and Senator Barry Goldwater of whom we have all heard. The Senators who had prominent positions were the ones who came from the smallest populated states because that was part of the unwritten law, and it brought a sense of equality.
My final point is that of effectiveness, Madam Speaker. That is where I believe the institution ought to be measured in its judgment and that is what the real debate is about. It is important that we have a Senate that is elected, that is equal, but probably with some measure of control so that it could not always force one vote by one person to reverse House of Commons legislation. This would mean it could have sober second thought and it could demand another reflection. If that were so, I think the citizens of the nation by and large would send to the House of Commons the necessary signals to bring the balance we need in debate in this place.
I see that my time is up, Madam Speaker. I want to conclude by thanking the Hon. Member for Prince Edward- Hastings for bringing such an important Bill to our attention.


David Bruce Daubney: Madam Speaker, in the few minutes remaining in private Members' hour, I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate on the motion sponsored by a very distinguished private Member of this House, the Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis). His motion has given us an opportunity today to look at the broad issue of Senate reform, a subject that has received considerable attention over the years, probably starting on July 2, 1867.
The Prime Minister of that day, our first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, coined the phrase "sober second thought". I think it is clear, although it is certainly a moot point, that from Confederation to the present day the Senate has made an important contribution in the area of legislative review. But the Fathers of Confederation also intended that the Senate should have a regional representation function. They used the expression "sectional interests" as being protected. I think few of us would deny that the second
principle function intended for the Senate is not being carried out effectively.
Why is it that the Senate is not able to play an effective role in regional representation? Again, there is broad agreement in this House, and I think across the country, that for Senators to be appointed by the federal Government until age 75 lessens the ability of Senators to represent their regions. As pointed out by the Hon. Member for York West (Mr. Marchi), the public does not accord a high level of legitimacy to Senators, largely because of the appointment method. As a result, the Senate lacks the authority to exercise the substantial powers it has under the Constitution. I think the Senators themselves, however willing and able they might be, are not seen as defending regional interests.
It seems quite clear that the principle purpose behind many recent proposals for Senate reform has been to restore to that chamber its intended role in regional representation. That is certainly one of the main aims of the Hon. Member from Prince Edward-Hastings. Some have pointed out that in the absence of a sufficiently strong second chamber, provincial Governments and Premiers have, on occasion, stepped in to try to fill that gap. Others have observed that our electoral system has created the impression that the support for national political Parties in particular regions is much lower than it really is. They also point out that in its present form the Senate cannot help to compensate for the imbalances in elected representation in this House.
There are other arguments for an enhanced regional representation role for the Senate, but in the end most of them share a common goal, to allow Canada's Senate to play the sort of role that second chambers play in other federal systems.
What is the evidence that improved regional representation has become the main focus of Senate reform proposals? I would suggest there is a substantial body of evidence to this effect, Madam Speaker. The former Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform was asked in its terms of reference, for example, to:
Report on ways by which the Senate of Canada could be reformed in order to strengthen its role in representing people from all regions of Canada.
The committee, as you know, heard many witnesses from various regions and sectors of Canadian society. Although their views and proposals differed, it is fair to say that more witnesses called for the Senate's regional representation role to be strengthened than for any other function to be emphasized.
In the remaining minute or so I would like to refer to one witness, a strong representative from western Canada, Dr. David Elton, President of the Canada West Foundation who said:
In this country what we really need are regional spokesmen in Ottawa, not provincial Governments per se, but regional spokesmen who can address the concerns of their constituents and ensure that they have a meaningful role to play in the deliberation and the legislation that the national Government brings into existence.
I appreciate that my time has expired and I thank the House for its attention, Madam Speaker.
March 19, 1987


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I see that the Hon. Member for Quebec East (Mr. Tremblay) would have liked to address the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hour set aside for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, last Friday, or last week in any case, I rose in the House to raise a matter I felt was important. I wanted to shed some light on the sale of certain federal services, more specifically the Surveys and Mapping Services and the Canada Centre for Remote Sensing at the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, and the Canadian Hydrographic Survey at Fisheries and Oceans. The House will recall that the issue raised quite a few comments for about ten days, and that finally, the Government put an end to the debate in the House by giving us the whole truth, saying it had no intention of privatizing these services which were judged to be essential.
The main point of my intervention at the time consisted in showing that the Government was sometimes hard-pressed to be clear to Canadians about its intentions and how it would proceed. Anyone who did not keep track of the Government's record in this debate might have thought this was an exception, an isolated incident, but it seems to be a pattern, a scenario that is being repeated time and time again.
This evening, I would like to raise a matter which I think will be of considerable interest to Hon. Members, and on which this Government is still hesitating and dragging its feet. I am referring to the Official Languages Act and the promise made by this Government in two Throne Speeches and during the 1984 election campaign. It has been said repeatedly in this House, by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and by the responsible Ministers, including the Secretary of State, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Justice, that the Government intends to table amendments to the Official Languages Act. The latest question on the subject, Madam Speaker, which is the subject of my speech this
Adjournment Debate
evening, goes back to December 11, 1986, at page 2022 of Hansard.
The Official Languages Act has been in existence for nearly seventeen years. As so many of us, it is showing its age, and needs some improvements. It needs to be modernized, to be updated, to reflect today's reality, and I do not think I know a single Member of this House who is against the suggestion, as I said, that the legislation be brought before this forum, this Parliament so that we might update it, strengthen it and amend it as required.
And this is becoming urgent because mentalities have changed in Canada since it was adopted in 1969. We must admit indeed that the situation has changed. The Constitution was repatriated and it has brought on many significant changes concerning the whole linguistic issue, and there have been a number of judgments by various Canadian courts about the interpretation to be given to both the Constitution and the Official Languages Act.
The result of all this is that we need leadership, we need amendments to the Official Languages Act. I think it is imperative that the matter be dealt with by the House, that the Government show leadership and, as I said earlier, that it find solutions to the important questions of national culture and identity, that it give a new spirit, if you like, a new vigour to the Official Languages Act and its application.
Madam Speaker, basic reforms are a must if we want to meet the challenges of the years 2000. A whole new generation has been raised in this atmosphere, this new climate, this new way of thinking and seeing things.
I believe that this generation is increasingly willing to accept both Canadian realities and to accept that they can flourish without either one being threatened. I do not believe that anyone could demonstrate today that, by asserting my rights as a francophone, I could in any way weaken or diminish the rights of the English-speaking majority, and vice versa, in Quebec, I do not believe that an English-speaking Canadian who asserts his right to use his own language at home can threaten in any way the identity or right to exist of the Quebec majority.
Madam Speaker, I am not alone in saying that it is essential to amend the Official Languages Act. As I have already pointed out, the Prime Minister has repeated on many occasions in the House and during the electoral campaign, and the Government has given Canadians hope in two Speeches from the Throne that this legislation will be amended. Until now, we have heard only promises and endless excuses, but as we all know, Madam Speaker, there are limits to anyone's patience, and I believe that the Government should now set some time table for the Canadian public and announce what will be done about the linguistic issue. The Government should introduce amendments as soon as possible during this session so that we may look at them and discuss them with our usual openmindedness. Such a process can only lead to a piece of

March 19, 1987
Adjournment Debate
legislation which will be much more appropriate to this day and age.
We must not hesitate too long because to do so could lead to other instances of what we saw in the case of the RCMP. Certain agencies could use such an opportunity to make undesirable changes by saying that there is a vacuum which must be filled. I want to invite the Parliamentary Secretary, in the spirit of reform and to show that this Government and this Parliament speak for all Canadians, to give to all the Government agencies which might be somewhat impatient and want to take action a firm and specific indication this evening that amendments will be introduced in the near future.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, it is on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) tonight that I am providing details on the questions raised by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). First, Madam Speaker, concerning the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, as the President of the Treasury Board already indicated, the Treasury Board has neither considered nor approved of any reduction for whatever reason in the RCMP's or any other federal institution's goals for hiring employees or recruits whose first official language is French. Policy changes proposed by the RCMP in that respect will be submitted to his colleagues in the Treasury Board and to himself for consideration.
With respect to the many complaints that were filed with the Commissioner of Official Languages against the Canadian Security Intelligence service, as was mentioned by my colleague the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kelleher) here some time ago, action already has been taken to remedy the situation. This action includes the appointment of a larger number of bilingual officers at headquarters, the enhancement of language skills for certain key positions, as well as an increase in the envelope for translation, in order that written communications be provided in both official languages.
As far as language training is concerned, the expected Public Service Commission staff reductions will not lead to any reduction in the use of French in Government Departments because, wherever possible, language teachers will be moved to other positions within the Public Service itself. On the contrary, changes to the language training policy and staff restructuring within the Public Service Commission are a major initiative in terms of efficiency and effectiveness in the area of official languages. As Hon. Members know, the Government will still be picking up the costs of language training needed for operational requirements, and also encouraging language training with a view to improving individual career prospects. Training opportunities will not be reduced, neither inside departments nor regarding the employees.
As to the question of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier concerning the presentation of the Bill amending the Official
Languages Act, I cannot but repeat the statement the Prime Minister made on that subject on the 5th of December last year. If it is not before Christmas, it will be shortly after, due to the consultations the Government absolutely wants to hold on that matter.
Finally, Madam Speaker, the Government is well aware of the necessity to increase the francophone representation among the administrative group. You can rest assured that it spares no effort to that end. Along with the Public Service Commission, the Treasury Board keeps a watchful eye on the matter. Given the circumstances, of course, it may still take a few years before we reach a completely satisfactory situation, but the President of the Treasury Board wants you to know that this principle is of the utmost importance for the Government, and that all fair measures are taken, while respecting the merit principle, in order to continue increasing the francophone representation in the administrative group of the federal Public Service.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-OPPORTUNITY TO INCREASE FUNDS FOR RESEARCH. (B) APPROVAL OF PROJECTS
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, in preparing for my remarks this evening I was reminded of a comment made by John Polanyi, the Nobel laureate, at a dinner in his honour in Ottawa several weeks ago. A video tape had been shown, touching on some of the highlights of his remarkable career. In characteristically modest fashion, Professor Polanyi said that his work was but an element of the story of Canadian achievement past, present and future. "The question is", he said, "how long will that future be postponed"?
Canadians are still waiting for an answer to that question from the Conservative Government. Indeed, all we have seen since the last election are reversals and confusion, a policy and a Government that is in disarray. The saga of Canada's participation in the space station is a perfect illustration of a policy and a Government in disarray.
When I asked my question regarding cuts at the National Research Council, the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) denied for the umpteenth time that there had been any cuts at the National Research Council. Who did the Minister think he was fooling? Surely not the small businesses in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Saskatchewan that I visited in September and October, prior to the announcement of the cuts. They told me that their projects had been put on hold because of a lack of funding in the Industrial Research Assistance Program, which is one of the most effective government programs in helping small and mediumsized businesses across Canada to do research and become innovative.
The truth is that the Cabinet ordered a cut in that program. However, the Minister had to back down following a wave of protest from across the country and when the members of the
March 19, 1987

board of directors of the National Research Council refused to take that direction from the Government to cut IRAP.
While the Government announced its participation in the space station over a year ago, we still do not know today where the money is coming from to pay for that program. We know that the National Research Council was forced to contribute some S60 million. The Minister was asked by an Ottawa Citizen reporter last fall to provide a list of the exact sources of money. Tie declined to do so because, he said: "It might cause my colleagues at other Departments unnecessary problems".
We have had a hint of some of these problems in recent days. We have learned that regional development moneys will go into the space program. Indeed, the Cabinet has ordered the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion to take some $35 million and $5 million respectively, or a total of $40 million, from the Laprade Fund and the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspe Funds to pay for our participation in the space program.
[ Translation]
Madam Speaker, not a single cent of that money will go back to the Mauricie, Bois-Francs or Gaspe areas, because there are no opportunities there. There is no research facilities and there is no way that part of the country can participate in the space program. Consequently, funds that had been earmarked by the Government for regional development are being secretly taken away, without the Government telling the truth to the Canadian population.
I mentioned this to the Minister several weeks ago and he expressed surprise that we had obtained the information. He wondered how we had got it. A researcher from the Library of Parliament got it through a simple telephone call to the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Minister really outdid himself in answering a question I put to him two weeks ago. I again asked him when he would be able to provide us with details of the funding of the space program. He replied: "I do not know if I will ever be able to provide such information, if I will ever know what the answers are". Does that not inspire confidence in the Government? Canadians can really sleep well tonight knowing that our Government is in such good hands.
Professor Polanyi was once again disappointed by the Government when it announced its science and technology strategy 10 days ago. Our future is still on hold. I do not know if you have seen this policy statement, Madam Speaker. It is a very fancy policy statement. It looks like a placemat. It is pretty. It has the coats of arms of the provincial and territorial Governments. It has the signatures of the Ministers, but there is not one more nickel for research funds. I hope that one of these days the Government will learn that what we need is more spending for research, not cutting. The Minister will
Adjournment Debate
learn that we cannot solve problems by throwing promises endlessly at them.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, as usual, the Hon. Member has departed from the question he asked and it is really annoying. The question he asked was why the Government has reduced IRAP funding by $60 million, thereby jeopardizing the competitiveness of Canadian industry, particularly small and medium-size business. The Hon. Member did not deal with that question at all, and that is what he asked.
I am pleased to respond today because it provides the opportunity to set the record straight on this issue. Simply, the Government never cut the NRC IRAP Program by $60 million. The Hon. Member should know that the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) gave his personal assurances that the level of IRAP grants in 1986-87 would not be any less than in previous years.
As the Hon. Member is so poorly informed about federal science and technology policy, perhaps he will not mind if I take a moment to educate him. Let me first say that the Government's actions with respect to the NRC have been part of a consistent policy. The Speech from the Throne announced the opening of a major effort to carve out a significant place for science and technology in the culture of Canada.
Had we taken office with a clean slate, there would have been few problems in meeting these objectives. Instead, we inherited a crisis situation which was built up by the Party to which the Hon. Member belongs. Years of unrealistic spending has led to an intolerable deficit position. Federal science and technology expenditures were an unco-ordinated grab-bag of programs, many just bricks and mortar, not science, working in isolation and often at cross-purposes. This meant that we could not move as freely or as quickly as we wanted. In particular, we found that the federal Government science and technology effort was in poor shape. There was no consistent national science and technology policy or priorities. As a result, the efforts of federal agencies, provincial organizations, universities and industry were unco-ordinated and, at times, ineffective. Funding for the granting councils was not secure, and vast sums were being spent on additional bricks and mortar for various federal facilities. Finally, the scientific research tax credit was losing significant tax revenue with little result.
Since taking office the Government has worked on four different fronts. First, we halted the SRTCs and replaced them with a refundable tax credit designed to help all Canadian companies, especially small start-up firms. Second, we have given the granting councils a guaranteed funding base for the next five years. From this measure alone, the university research community could receive over $ 1 billion in additional funds over the next five years. Third, we have developed a national consensus on science and technology that fully

March 19, 1987
Adjournment Debate
involves all players. The product of this consensus building, which has recently been announced by the Minister of State for Science and Technology in Vancouver, is a national science and technology policy setting out the framework for a more coordinated and vigorous national effort in R and D. Fourth, we have begun to rationalize the Government's laboratories system, including NRC, to focus federal efforts on support to industry.
All these measures have been put in place within the constraints imposed by the deficit position. Despite these constraints the Government is finding additional resources when requested by NRC to meet new requirements. In fact, NRC is getting an additional 62 person-years for its operations next year.
In summary, the situation at NRC has been misrepresented and exaggerated out of all proportion by the Opposition. In actual fact the reductions which have taken place were necessary but very limited. The impact on people is being contained and the NRC remains a strong and viable research facility with new resources in important areas such as biotechnology.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-ACID RAIN-FORTHCOMING MEETING BETWEEN PRIME MINISTER AND UNITED STATES PRESIDENT. (B) NEED FOR UNITED STATES COMMITMENT
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, as you well know, the subject I raise tonight is with respect to acid rain. It is becoming evident that the Government's acid rain strategy is falling apart. We have now reached a stage at which getting President Reagan to live up to a commitment made a year ago has been proclaimed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to be a very significant movement. The fact of the matter is we are now locked into a five-year research and demonstration program. This is a program that will have no benefits to our dying lakes, forests and ecosystem because there are no commitments within the program to cut acid rain.
As Michael Perley of the Canadian Coalition on Acid Rain put it:
Clean coal technology isn't the key to the solution ... Emission reduction is
the key.
I ask myself and the Parliamentary Secretary what the Prime Minister will be bargaining for at the summit on April 5 since he accepted with open arms yesterday President Reagan's proposed solution with respect to continuing with more demonstration projects. Not only has the Prime Minister accepted it, he has done so three weeks before the summit begins. Thus he has basically given away any bargaining position that he might have had. He could have remained silent and prepared on the basis of a position for Canada that would go well beyond what was announced yesterday in Washington by President Reagan. One has to ask oneself what the Prime Minister will be asking at the summit now that he has said: "Hurrah, that is what we want". Yet it was something promised a year ago, and it was for more than demonstration and research.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary when the Government will muster the necessary courage-and not very much is needed-to say in a straightforward and plain manner to President Reagan that what we want is not more research and demonstration but cuts in acid rain. We want a significant program from the Canadian point of view with deadlines, percentages and dates such as we have launched on the Canadian side. We want to move ahead together in the interests of Americans and Canadians. One begins to wonder why the Government is pussyfooting around instead of saying it as it is. The basic mistake was made a year or two ago when this Envoy's report was launched and it was decided that we should go for research and development. Time is running out. Years are going by and the environment is still subject to deterioration and constant acidic precipitation.
We are not alone in saying this. Henry Wexman, the U.S. representative in Congress, says that by accepting President Reagan's pledge our Prime Minister has been accused of "selling out the Canadian people and the Canadian environment". He went on to say, "I am surprised that the second time around the Prime Minister would not see through the President's hocus-pocus . . . This is a betrayal of our common environment".
As another example, Clifford Lincoln, the Quebec Minister of the Environment, said Reagan's promise "sounds good until you read between the lines. There's nothing about limits of reduction. There's nothing about abatements. There's nothing about timetables. The signal is very clear to us. We've got to start pushing and screaming a little louder". That is what a distinguished Minister of the Environment in Canada is saying.
If that is not enough, Senator George Mitchell, the Chairman of the U.S. Senate Subcommittee on the Environment, said last week: "I hope the same thing does not happen again", namely this acceptance by the Prime Minister of President Reagan's diplomatic solutions. Congressman Sikorski chimes in along similar lines. I have already told you what Michael Perley of the Canadian Coalition on Acid Rain has said. I will quote another distinguished American-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I suggest to the Member that if he does want an answer it may be to his advantage to give the floor to the Parliamentary Secretary.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Madam Speaker, of course questions are important but sometimes the answers are also. One must surely have to be quite bold to ask such a question and challenge us about our achievements. When one really considers what we have done . . . This Government, Madam Speaker, has done more to solve the problem of acid rain-and besides it has been recognized by everyone including the media-than the previous Governement.
March 19, 1987

The Prime Minister met with President Reagan in Quebec City in March 1986. They decided to conclude an agreement. During that time, the Opposition was chuckling and laughing and still was looking for dirt and scandals.
Then, Madam Speaker, the representatives appointed by the United States and Canada met to discuss acid rain and means to solve the problems. They came up with recommendations and findings. The U.S. President and Mr. Mulroney met in Washington in March 1986, one year later. They accepted those findings and promised to take the necesssary action. During that time, our opponents on the other side were still looking for dirt and scandals. They were not making any comparison with what had been done in past years.
Today, Madam Speaker, my colleague for Richmond- Wolfe (Mr. Tardif), a Member of the party opposite, has risen in the House to address the disastrous effects of acid rain on maple trees and said that conditions will be worse four years from now. I fully agree with him and I find it terrible. The people in my Beauharnois-Salaberry riding agree. However, Madam Speaker, acid rain is not the result of the election of a Tory Government in September 1984. The problems did not happen overnight after the election of the Tories. What was done before Septembre 1984 in that regard? If these problems
Adjournment Debate
are so catastrophic as is the case today, it is because absolutely nothing was done in the past. Do you know what he proposed for a solution? Will the producers receive any money? That is what has always been done. They think money can buy them peace of mind. That is not the solution. We have to take the proper means.
The last announcement.. . Mr. Bush did indeed come here, Madam Speaker, when we indicated how concerned we were about the agreement that was signed with Mexico; he took the trouble to come here in person. It did not happen when the Members opposite were in government. They were still scouring the garbage cans for scandals. What happened last Wednesday in Washington? Funds were allocated. Let us trust people who are sane and who wish to build a better world as fast as they can.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House in now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Friday, March 20, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers