1990-06-11

[Stage Direction]


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops) moved: that Bill C-221, An Act to protect water in Canada, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee
He said: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to introduce for debate, Bill C-221.
I would like to begin my comments by suggesting that when people think of Canada or when Canadians think of our own country, there are a number of things that spring almost instantly to mind. One of those would be the term Meech Lake. I think that has been associated with being what Canadians are and what being Canadian is all about.
I suspect water is another item which makes one think of Canada. It has become almost a Canadian experience to take advantage of an abundance of water, since many other countries are not necessarily so fortunate to have such a vast resource.
It could mean houseboating or cottaging around our lakes, canoeing down rivers or across lakes, fishing in streams, boating on our coasts or in our inland waterways. It could be kayaking, yachting or sailing. The association of people with water has become a Canadian experience. I suppose the beer ads reflect that most clearly, in terms of people having fun in Canadian water.
On the other hand, there is another side to this water issue. We find that there are hundreds of lakes in the
greater Ottawa area that are lifeless because of acid rain. While they look nice, very pristine and glacier clear, the fact is they look like that because there is nothing living in them. They are dead lakes. We hear of increasing pollution of waterways, streams and lakes and find, with horror, that many Canadian cities, large and small, still today dump raw sewage directly into our river systems and lakes.
It is almost incomprehensible that a country as sophisticated and developed as Canada would still find it acceptable to dump vast quantities of raw sewage directly into our rather pristine river systems on a daily basis. We are getting close to that time of the season when people would like to go to the beaches and go swimming. They will find the beaches closed for swimming because the water is polluted.
We have to ask ourselves what kind of a country are we that will allow beaches and water bodies, particularly those adjacent to large metropolitan areas, to be closed regularly every summer because of increased levels of pollution in our waterways.
I realized the need for this bill a few months ago while boating in the gulf islands, off our west coast. The boat was tied up with a whole set of other boats for an evening in a very secluded and safe cove. I recall getting up early in the morning, leaping into the water as one does to refresh oneself and enjoy an early-morning dip, only to notice as I am swimming around, a lot of indefinable bits of debris floating in the water around me. I then realized that everyone who had gotten up at the same time had decided to flush their toilets on their boats directly into the cove, and here I am swimming around with all sorts of interesting other objects. I got out of the water very quickly, I will tell you.
I had to ask myself what kind of a country we had that would allow this. I started to look at the laws and decided to introduce Bill C-221 as a result. I went back and looked at the federal water policy in 1987, when Environment Canada issued the federal water policy for the Government of Canada. This was a report outlining the major issues facing Canada's water resources, along with

June 11, 1990
Private Members' Business
a comprehensive list of initiatives that the Conservative government would undertake. That was in 1987.
We saw 1987 end, 1988 end, and 1989 end, and now we are into 1990. Quite frankly, little substantive movement has been made in any legislative forum to address the many issues cited in the report as being fundamental to the continued availability of our fresh water stocks when it comes to fishing and the whole matter of clean water and safe drinking water in our country.
Bill C-221, the bill before us today, takes the necessary step beyond rhetoric. It encourages us and, in some respects, compels us to examine seriously our water usage today in order to assure the availability of this precious Canadian resource for generations to come. Across Canada, I think we would agree that communities have acted and reacted differently to the challenges presented to them in recent years when the essential nature of coherent water management policies became a concern, not only for the federal government, but also for provincial governments and municipalities, including the nation's capital, Ottawa.
To be fair, I might say that there have been some outstanding efforts to clean up polluted waterways and lakes in some areas while, in others, the policy and problems of pollution control have become worse. The matter worsens by the day.
What we need is a commitment from the government to embrace a comprehensive water policy for Canada. We need federal leadership to establish maximum contaminant levels in drinking water. A national standard is necessary to ensure that all Canadians can be guaranteed clean water, regardless of which area one happens to reside in.
I think it is fair to say that in a country like Canada, blessed with the natural water resources that we have, safe drinking water is a fundamental right that any citizen ought to expect. Quite plainly, the necessity of clean water is no longer debatable. Today, we do not and ought not debate the need for it. We should debate the methods and ways of achieving it.
Clean water is a social good that goes beyond being an issue for ourselves. It has become an issue about our responsibilities toward our children, their children, and so on. We need a mandate to establish a minimum level
of stewardship or our water will not last, at least in any usable form.
The federal water policy recommends that the government undertake "physical, chemical, biological and socioeconomic investigations". I am pleased to say that this bill makes this a reality. It directs the Minister of the Environment to cause research to be conducted into a wide range of water-related issues such as the causes, diagnoses, treatment, control, and prevention of adverse health effects associated with contaminants; the researching of new methods of purifying water; and investigating the sources of surface and ground water contamination, just to name a few.
This bill would force the government to keep its promises of expanded research in an area so vital to Canada's interest.
There are some in this Chamber who would say we have no business talking about water in the House of Commons because it is a provincial responsibility. I would say, with all due respect, that they would be incorrect.
The federal government and Parliament have a vested interest in the protection of navigable waters, shipping, drinking water in areas of federal jurisdiction, international water management, and federal-provincial-territorial co-operation in water resources, planning and management. Following the recommendations of Environment Canada, this bill would make the federal approach more anticipatory in order to protect the health and safety of Canadians. It is time that we became more pro-active in the matter of water policy development, as opposed to waiting for problems to happen and then simply reacting.
The government promised to bring forth legislative initiatives which would address interjurisdictional water issues. This bill, Bill C-221, would provide a mandate for the federal government to co-ordinate and formulate the implementation of inter-basin transfer policies, along with research into the effects.
At the moment, there are no penalties for surpassing the federal guidelines on water contaminants. This bill establishes a process by which testing is implemented, results are made public, and those supplies which fail to meet standards are not used until able to comply with the minimum standards of purity.
June 11, 1990

The government promised public participation in making water management decisions, but I cannot recall any opportunity for the public to become involved in the development of a comprehensive national water policy. As a matter of fact, there has been no opportunity for citizens generally, who are either marginally or very seriously interested in this issue, to participate in the formulation of such a policy. Without a plan before Parliament, there is no avenue for public discourse on the subject. Bill C-221 ensures the public's right to know by providing for public disclosure of the results of water testing.
Bill C-221 would require water suppliers to be responsible for testing their water supplies at least every month. This would encourage suppliers to be vigilant in their efforts to ensure the integrity of the water they supply to Canadians. Not only would they test monthly, but the results would be available for everyone to see because they would be required to be mailed to every user with their monthly water bill. This would be a direct way to involve the public. Not only would they know that their water is being tested, but they would be aware of what standards are being used and to what extent the supplier would comply with those standards.
During the debates on the free trade agreement, many alarming questions concerning large-scale water diversions to the United States were raised. As we are all aware, water was not given an exclusion from the free trade agreement, as were logs and beer. I find it rather odd when one considers we made a specific effort to exclude beer in the free trade agreement, yet we did not take the same measure with fresh water. Although anyone in a liquor store would notice that the American brewing industry has found a way around this. Even though beer was excluded from the free trade agreement, Canadians now drink even more American beer.
We are all aware of our friends to the south looking covetously at water in Canada. In the American southwest water supplies are drying up. Usage is increasing at alarming rates and a shortage is imminent, particularly when considering the drought conditions faced during the last few years. I suspect that more and more our American friends are looking northward to Canada.
Private Members' Business
We are all reminded of the North American water and power alliance from the 1960s when American engineers brought before the Senate a plan to divert a number of Canadian rivers into the United States. That plan is still on the books. A number of senators from the western states recently indicated their interest in the NAWAPA plan, the North American Water and Power Alliance, and major diversions of western Canadian rivers into the United States as far south as northern Mexico. Perhaps when the United States and Mexico begin their free trade agreement discussions, Canadian water will be part of those deliberations.
Canada is perceived to be in possession of massive amounts of fresh water which could be used to shore up faltering American water stocks. The fact is that Canadian water supplies are just able to meet our own needs and talking about huge diversion schemes at this point is completely unacceptable.
Canada comprises 7 per cent of the world's land mass and has approximately 9 per cent of its renewable water. According to a federal government report, this is very misleading because 60 per cent of our fresh water drains north, while 90 per cent of our population lives within a 300-kilometre area of the southern border with the United States. This means that even though water is technically available it is not always where it is needed. We have serious problems here with our own internal water management policies which must be addressed. The exportation of water through diversion schemes should be taken off the table as a topic for debate completely. The social, economic, and environmental costs of major inter-basin transfers to the United States are completely unacceptable regardless of what the short-term benefits may be.
The government also promised that it would take the strongest possible steps to prohibit the export of Canadian water by inter-basin transfer. Several ministers have assured us that such diversions are out of the question, but we still have no concrete legislative initiatives to ban the diversion of our waters. There are no laws in the books which would prohibit large diversions of our precious water resources. Bill C-221 would fill this legal loophole by specifically prohibiting the exportation of water from Canada by inter-basin transfer.

June 11, 1990
Private Members' Business
Canadians will feel a lot more secure once Bill C-221 passes later today. We will then have a law in place that the House of Commons would have supported that would prohibit the exportation of water from Canada southward.
Not only does this bill allow consumers to get involved with water concerns by making a broad base of information now open to them, it also provides for individuals to be able to file for damage against those who have violated the tenets of this bill. This would not only be a powerful incentive for water suppliers to be honest and very forthright in their dealing with the public, but also would enable those who use the resource to keep a watchful eye over would-be polluters.
After all is said and done, getting the public involved and aware of the importance of water management is an essential element of any national water policy which would be successful. The average Canadian must know that their contribution to water conservation does make a difference and that they do count in the process. That is why Bill C-221 involves people directly in the process.
This bill would provide very stiff penalties with first offenders facing up to $1,000 fines. Repeat offenders would be fined up to $1 million. Any person may petition the courts for damages caused by contravention of this act or any regulation made thereunder from the person who made the violation.
Finally, any person can ensure that this act is being carried out by the Minister of the Environment by applying for a judicial review. This allows individuals to take part in a first-hand way in ensuring that Canadian water supplies are maintained. Anyone would be able to apply for review whether they have suffered damages or not.
In a sense, that summarizes the contents of Bill C-221 and the motivation for its introduction. I also must take this opportunity to acknowledge the preparatory work that was done to make this presentation possible by Mr. Kenneth Ross who is an intern from the University of Michigan. I appreciate the support he has provided in making this possible.


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-221 does refer at some length to the issue of water quality in Canada. The government very much appreciates the
support of the hon. member for Kamloops in his efforts to support good water quality in Canada. The quality of raw or untreated water is of vital importance to the country and to the health and life-style of Canadians.
Canadians are very fortunate in the fact that we have access to a disproportionate amount of the world's supply of fresh water. As all members of the House know, fresh water is a scarce resource which Canadians sometimes, perhaps too often, take for granted.
The government does not believe that we can continue to ignore the importance of the water resource. As pollution and environmental issues rise on the public agenda, so does the need for clear, reliable information on water quality; information that is based on scientific knowledge of water and its response to chemical and biological threats; information which reports the findings of monitoring efforts; information that describes the cleanliness of particular waterways; and information that details the actions by governments, industry, and the public to resolve problems.
The hon. member for Kamloops is right to remind the House of the importance of water quality. He is also quite right in suggesting in Section 6 of his bill that the government undertake research on water quality, on the linkage between water and public health issues, and on water quality assurance technologies. His proposal to regulate against contamination of the aquatic environment and to penalize those who ignore water quality is laudable.
However, none of the ideas present in C-221 are new. In fact, the government, working in concert with the provincial and municipal governments, is already active in protecting waterways.
In the St. Lawrence River, the Great Lakes, Halifax Harbour, and the Fraser River, the government is playing a key role in identifying pollution sources, ensuring that they are cleaned up and in preventing further environmental deterioration.
We have in place the legislative authority for our actions. The Canadian Environmental Protection Act, otherwise known as CEPA, the Fisheries Act, the Pest Control Products Act, and the Transport of Dangerous Goods Act all serve to control the threat of toxic contamination of our waterways.
June 11, 1990

Water quality cannot be isolated from the wider environmental context. We believe that the best way of protecting water quality is by prevention, by effectively controlling the creation, use and disposal of toxic substances, whether they be in rivers, lakes, oceans, in the air we breathe or in terrestrial resources such as trees or crops. That is why in 1988 we brought in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. The bottom line for this government has been and will continue to be that threat of toxic substances to the environment and to human life must be eliminated.
That is why the Fisheries Act restricts dumping of harmful materials into Canadian waters. In fact, this government recently used this provision to propose stringent regulations on effluent from pulp and paper facilities. We will be taking similar action on other major sources of water pollution.
I would also like to point out that the Government of Canada has considerable internationally respected scientific expertise in water quality. I would like to take a moment to praise those many, many public servants who work on our behalf and whose efforts are all too often, unfortunately, denigrated by the public at large. This expertise provides a foundation for the articulation of water quality guidelines.
To be clear, water quality guidelines are a way of defining how clean water must be for each major use. For example, how clean must the water be for swimming, to which the hon. member has just referred, for irrigation, watering livestock, industrial uses, supporting aquatic life or for feeding into municipal drinking water treatment plants. The guidelines are nationally accepted yardsticks. As such they provide the basis for provincial regulation of industrial pollution and municipal sewage treatment.
We now have guidelines in place for over 50 substances, and more are currently being developed.
Our scientific work links environmental and health impacts. It draws on the findings of the world's best experts, be they Canadian or from other countries. Our scientific evaluation, carried out in co-operation with the provincial governments, produces water quality guidelines which are credible, and which have the support of all the governments involved.
Private Members' Business
Our water quality monitoring work serves several purposes. It supports the development and enforcement of federal regulations. It also supports the preparation of public information on the state of Canada's aquatic environment.
This monitoring information tells Canadians just how clean particular waterways are, and whether or not they meet quality requirements for swimming, irrigation, watering livestock and fishing, among other things.
These guidelines are also used by decision makers as targets for pollution control measures. For example, in the case of pulp and paper mill effluent, water quality guidelines are being used as a basis for scientific requirements for each mill, whether they be new or old.
The Canadian public is increasingly concerned about water quality. This government shares that concern. We recognize the vital link between water quality and human health. However, we are not and must not be satisfied with the status quo. We have begun to expand our assessment work to examine the quality of the marine environment. This means monitoring shorelines and estuaries. It means testing marine waters as well as sediments. We will also be looking at national quality guidelines for groundwater.
In closing, I would like to say that I veiy much appreciate the effort of the hon. member for Kamloops, but I would suggest that Bill C-221 addresses many of the issues which are already being addressed by the government. I look forward to his support and participation in the debate as time proceeds.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the proponent of the bill, as well as all members of the House, are awaiting anxiously the opportunity to support new environmental initiatives and are somewhat perturbed that they have been so long in coming. We are certainly hoping before the end of the session to have the opportunity to deal with the environmental assessment legislation which has been promised for such a long time.
I would like to comment on the bill. I certainly support its objectives. First, I will make some comments on the specifics.
The kind of action recommended in the bill is long overdue, given the report Currents of Change that was produced for the government in 1985 by Dr. Pearse, and which to date has seen virtually no action. It is not much wonder that the opposition feels constrained to bring

June 11, 1990
Private Members' Business
forward a bill to protect the quality of drinking water for Canadians, as well as the quality of our rivers, lakes and oceans in terms of effluents, and to deal with the very serious problem raised by Dr. Pearse in his 1985 report concerning the diversion of major waterways and water systems.
Having said some veiy complimentary things about the intention of the bill, I have to say that the specifics of it show exactly why the New Democratic Party has never been elected to govern this country and why it never should be, at least not until it gets a little more in touch with reality. What this bill does, and I have certainly heard the NDP criticize the government for exactly this, is simply take a federal responsibility, push it down through two layers of government to the municipal level of government, in most cases, which can least afford to do what this bill proposes.
For instance, it asks municipalities to monitor, to inform and, most unrealistically of all, to provide an alternate water supply if there is anything found wrong with the supply of water available through the normal system.
Most municipalities monitor their water quality on a regular basis. From time to time things do happen that temporarily, usually for a very brief time, affect the quality of water. They are beyond the control of the people managing the water supply. To suggest that a totally parallel system be put in place so that a replacement water supply is immediately available for anyone who wants it, for whatever purpose they want it, is so out of touch with reality that I can hardly believe that the member has brought such a proposal forward.
I suggest that if the member is interested in having a bill that can be enforced practically and sensibly, then one of the things he might want to do is talk to the leaders of municipal governments across the this country, as members of my own caucus have done in preparation for a report that will be reproduced in the next couple of days. He would find out who could and who could not afford to live with the requirements that he is putting forward in his bill. Those who could not afford to live with them are the very communities in those regions that are already the most economically disadvantaged.
The member has to remember that the municipal property tax base is not income sensitive and that when 30 per cent of a community is unemployed the municipality still has the same obligations to meet in terms of providing water supply, sewage services as well as all of the other services that are within its mandate.
If the member has been keeping his eyes and ears open at all in the last six years, he would know that one of the crucial issues confronting municipalities right across this country is a shortage of resources even to bring their existing infrastructure up to par. For instance, in Newfoundland alone it will cost $1.6 billion just to provide basic water and sewer services to the homes which are not now provided with such services. It is estimated that $2.5 billion is needed to upgrade and replace existing water services.
We are talking about homes that have no water service aside from what they are able to get out of the ground on their own. We are talking about whether communities in some of the poorest regions of Canada can even meet the basic health requirements for a clean supply of water for their communities and their populations.
If the member were serious about bringing forward a bill like this he would have addressed the need for a municipal infrastructure program. He would have addressed the need for renewed federal programs to cost share with municipalities and the provincial governments, upgrading both the ability to provide clean water across the country and the ability to treat that water when it is returned to our waterways.
I must say I do support and urge the member to pursue the idea of national standards for both drinking water and discharges. As the Pearse report on water quality demonstrated, those standards were needed five years ago. They are even more needed now.
The need for research is also supported in this document, as is the deep concern about diversions which the government has so far failed to address in any whatsoever. We have to face the fact that Canada has more diversions of major water systems than the United States and the U.S.S.R. put together.
We have no idea what ecological, environmental, atmospheric damage or impacts we have caused by those diversions. We must certainly stop doing any more until we know exactly what we have done. Again, the Pearse report makes it absolutely clear that we have no idea what the impacts of those have been and what their
June 11, 1990

long-term affects not only for Canadians but for systems beyond our borders will be.
I am sorry that the parliamentary secretary did not choose to address this extremely important report which so far the government has chosen to put on a shelf and largely ignore. It addresses all the issues raised in the member's bill. I think it proposes more concrete solutions for many of them. While being critical of the way the member chooses to put through this bill, I am entirely supportive of the need for action to preserve the quality of our drinking water, the quality of our waterways, the quality of our oceans. We must preserve the natural systems that we have in place in Canada in such abundance and stop the desecration that we have allowed to occur in the past.
I put forward a challenge to the government to deal with this issue in a sensible way in consultation with the provinces, municipalities and the private sector, as Currents for Change recommends.
We must deal with these issues on an urgent basis, and the issue of exports of water is certainly one of the most urgent that needs to be dealt with.
I thank the member for his attention to this issue and for the opportunity to debate it today. I suggest to him that there is a great deal more that needs to be done on how his proposals should be implemented.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, it is an honour and a pleasure today to have an opportunity, short as it is, to make some comments on Bill C-221, put forward by the hon. member for Kamloops. I might add, Madam Speaker, as I think you know, that he has an ability when he is out in his riding, his province and across the country to identify what people are concerned about and to be able to translate those concerns into measures and suggestions that can be raised in this House.
While I have not been swimming lately where the hon. member may have been last year when he found funny things in the water, I think it is to his credit that he has identified this problem and brought it to the House and of course to the attention of all Canadians. That is part of our job here today.
Private Members' Business
I want to comment on some of the remarks made by the Liberal member. First, I know the member knows that in Private Members' Bills we are not allowed to recommend expenditures by the Crown. I know that the hon. member for Kamloops will be a minister in the next NDP government after the next election. We can then bring in legislation that will in fact deal with many of the questions mentioned by the member, including a municipal infrastructure program, a program which was cancelled by the Liberal Party when it was in office and which has yet to see any action from the Conservative government.
I think the issues raised by the member for Kamloops in this bill are clear. They are finally giving some guidance and direction to the country when it comes to the important necessity of dealing with water and water quality and, in particular, water management in our country. In Canada we all know how important a role water plays in our lives. We are made up of water. Much of the mass of Canada is made up of water. We know how important our everyday reaction and interaction to water is.
In my own particular area is found the headwaters of the Fraser River. It starts in the eastern end of my riding. We have flowing out of the western end of the riding a major tributary of the Fraser River which flows into Nechako Lake, Fraser Lake and Ootsa Lake. Thus we are very cognizant of the need to take a look at water management issues in northern British Columbia and across the country.
I think the member's legislation is well written because it deals with how we have to govern and work on an issue that is perhaps jurisdictionally difficult as water. Water does not respect provincial boundaries, let alone fiscal years or election years.
Part of the member's bill talks about entering into agreements with various governments, something which I think is particularly apt for the provincial government in my own province of British Columbia.
You have probably seen news reports, Madam Speaker, which have outlined the horrendous, outrageous, environment policies that the Social Credit government has had over the past number of years.
Some 3,000 pollution permits are issued in the province of British Columbia. Just recently information was released which showed that some 14 pulp mills are still in violation of those permits. It is absolutely incredible that

Private Members' Business
we have a provincial government that allows this to happen.
We also have had attempts by previous governments, as well as this government and its departments, with respect to the Heritage Rivers Act. The province of British Columbia, because it is on the other side of the mountains or because of Social Credit thinking, which is out of touch, has a government which refuses to participate in that heritage river policy. Rivers have played an important role in the development of the history of Canada and of British Columbia. Yet our provincial government still refuses to recognize that.
What this legislation attempts to do is address some of the concerns that we now face when it comes to water quality. All members have just received copies of a booklet entitled: What Can we Do for Our Environment?. While water issues are different in different parts of Canada, there have been various suggestions made to save water, such as putting a brick in the toilet, or taking what is called a sailor's shower which means turning off the water while you are shampooing. It is always a bit of a start when you have to turn the water back on because it always seems to be a little cold right at the start.
Those are some of the things that we should take a look at when we are dealing with water quality. They lead to the importance of ensuring that across the country, in co-operation with provincial and local governments, we develop the kind of guidelines that ensure that the water we get from the tap is safe for all of us.
What struck me most prior to the election when we were running for office, knowing that the environment would be a concern, was the whole question of beluga whales in the St. Lawrence. That struck me because when we are in school we learn about the big fish eating the smaller ones and so forth. We learn about the accumulation of DDT and dioxins in the livers and internal organs of these fish. When these belugas were dying because of that, it came pretty close to home.
It struck me as to how important it is that we pay attention to water quality in the country. What we have to do is take this little green book we all received in our office the other day that lays out the guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality.
What this legislation can do and what the Government of Canada should do, instead of putting out guidelines for Canadian drinking water quality, is legislate drinking water quality for Canadians so that we can ensure that the water we drink and the water that is in our environment is protected from the deleterious substances that flow into it from industry and development. This would ensure that our water is pure and clean.
If there is one effort that this House can make, and I know it is something that my friend from Kamloops has been pursuing, as has our environment critic, the member for Skeena, it is to ensure that water, one of our basics, is protected. We could go a long way to doing that if we were to pass today Bill C-221. It would have a tremendous positive impact on water quality.


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to have an opportunity to discuss the subject of safe drinking water which is most important to all concerned Canadians. The introduction of Bill C-221 concerning drinking water safety is encouraging.
Under the Canadian Constitution, resources, including water, are considered to be under provincial jurisdiction. It follows that the provision of drinking water and the legislation of standards and regulations are the primary responsibility of provincial governments, rather than the federal government.
The federal government has demonstrated leadership through the development of national guidelines for drinking water quality which have been undertaken largely on a collaborative basis between the federal and provincial levels of government.
The Department of National Health and Welfare fulfils the role of health adviser, as prescried under the Department of National Health and Welfare Act. Measures that are designed specifically to protect public health, such as the drinking water guidelines, are normally undertaken under the auspices of the Conference of Deputy Minsters of Health. A permanent subcommittee on drinking water, composed of representaives from all provinces and territories and from the Department of
June 11, 1990

National Health and Welfare, develops and revises the guidelines on a continuing basis.
The first comprehensive Canadian drinking water guidelines were pulished by the Department of National Health and Welfare in 1968. These were first revised in 1978, then again in 1987, and have now been revised as the fourth edition, released in 1989.
The guidelines are not legally enforceable, unless promulgated as regulations by the appropriate provincial agency.
The guidelines are the primary means of assessing the safety, from a human health perspective, of drinking water supplies for lifetime consumption. The guidelines also take into consideration aesthetic parameters such as color, taste and odour.
The guidelines, though, are not sufficient to ensure that problems with drinking water, arising from our modern society, are adequately addressed. Canadians from all provinces have recently become increasingly concerned about the quality of the drinking water which their municipalities deliver. In fact, in a survey that was conducted by a major Canadian magazine, 44 per cent of Canadians indicated that they believe tap water will not be drinkable by the year 2001.
Although major epidemics of typhoid and cholera are a matter of history in Canada, we cannot afford to be complacent about the presence of pathogens in drinking water. Giardiasis is emerging as a concern in Western Canada. There have also been outbreaks of viral diarrhea and occasional outbreaks of typhoid traced to water treatment plant failures, cross-connections and the flooding of wells. These have served to demonstrate the potential public health significance of organisms that may escape sanitary barriers. The current emphasis on chemical contaminants in drinking water, therefore, should not divert our attention from the need to control microbial pathogens in drinking water.
Over the last decade scientists have identified, and the media have reported on more than 1,000 organic chemicals that have occasionally been found to be present in drinking water. Fairly frequently, a dozen or more chemicals have been detected in a single water supply.
These have generally occurred at relatively low concentrations, in the parts per billion range, or less. This
Private Members' Business
detection is largely a result of the significant advances made in our ability to measure such low concentrations. In most cases, concentrations are so low that they do not represent a health hazard, but, in other cases, guidelines or objectives are needed to enable an assessment to be made of possible harm to human health.
We know that the general public is concerned that conventional water treatment processes, which are designed primarily to control bacteriological contamination and to remove inorganic contaminants such as metals, may not adequately remove certain trace organic contaminants. This concern has been manifested by the purchase of home-use treatment devices. It is believed that in-home devices to treat municipal water supplies are used in about 3 to 10 per cent of Canadian homes.
Although many of these water treatment devices may be safe and useful, it must be noted that the quality and safety of these devices is not regulated by any government department, and that inaccurate advertising claims have been known to occur. It is apparent that some control over these devices is required, as has been expressed by consumer groups, provincial agencies and the public.
It is now known that some compounds, generated during the treatment of drinking water, may also present health hazards. One of the most widely used treatment chemicals is chlorine, which is used as a disinfectant. Chlorination can give rise to the formation of chloroform and other chlorinated by-products, many of which may be harmful under certain conditions.
A look at alternative disinfectants, though, suggests that the well-proven chlorination process should not be abandoned, since there is very limited knowledge about the alternatives. One example is ozone, which is becoming increasingly popular in Canada, particularly in Quebec. Ozonation reaction products are still relatively unknown, but they are being studied by scientists in the Department of National Health and Welfare. Another alternative is chlorine dioxide, which does not give rise to the undesirable by-products formed during the chlorination process. A major disadvantage, though, is the production of chlorate and chlorite, which may be of health significance when ingested regularly at high concentrations.

Some chemicals may enter our drinking water indirectly, as a result of the use of certain pipes, paints, coatings or other lining materials in water storage and distribution systems. Here, chemicals may be released in small amounts as the material ages, or contaminants of the original material may be released. Examples include asbestos from lined pipes and vinyl chloride monomer released from polyvinyl chloride pipes. Any new legislation should address the problems of lack of mechanisms to evaluate and regulate drinking water contaminants arising from both direct and indirect means. Bill C-221 does not mention them.
The bill before us today does not adequately address these issues. Nevertheless, this government is committed to introducing legislation on drinking water. The Minister of National Health and Welfare intends to introduce a Drinking Water Safety Act for all Canadians.
Guidelines for drinking water quality, including microbiological, physical, chemical and radiological characteristics, would continue to be established in a similar fashion to the present. For reasons outlined previously, these guidelines will not be mandatory Canadian standards, unless made so by the provinces, as is the case at present. The present system for establishing guidelines has worked well for the past 20 years, thanks to the continuing high degree of co-operation demonstrated by all the provinces and the territories. Thus, there would be no change in legislative status, but current practice would be given legislative authority.
Consideration is also being given to regulating devices sold for home water treatment. At present, there are no control requirements or performance standards to ensure both efficacy for the purposes claimed and the protection of human health.
A review of the current and emerging issues-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry but I must interrupt the hon. member.
The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), this item is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being two o'clock, the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we as a nation can thank the Prime Minister for the constitutional mess we find ourselves in today. It is he who got us into the situation.
On the supremacy of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we are to rely on a letter that has no legal value. In the definition of Canada, the aboriginal people are still left out, as are several million Canadians whose ancestry is other than English or French.
The promotion of the official languages, of great importance to linguistic minorities, is also relegated to some future date. The spending powers of the federal government are subject to the whim of the provinces. On the Senate, one province could become the power broker in future negotiations. What a strange way to practise equality.
Despite his promise of national reconciliation, under this Prime Minister Canada is more divided than ever, but that is what you get when you lock 11 in a dark room for six days. A coristitution should be developed in daylight, not in darkness.
Will the Prime Minister ever learn that secrecy is not the road to nation building?


HOUSING
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians owe a great deal to the seniors of this country. The Government of Alberta and the Government of Canada have recognized the social debt and invested in residences, both apartments and lodges, to provide accommodation with varying levels of service for our seniors.
Last month, the minister of housing paid tribute to the Lion's Club in Edmonton for initiating the first seniors' residence accommodation in Alberta. The Lion's Club deserves to be praised, but we believe recognition for the first seniors' lodge in Alberta, possibly in Canada, belongs to the Kiwanis Club in Red Deer.
June 11, 1990

Working with the seniors in co-operation with the city and county of Red Deer, the Kiwanis Club started with financing approved by CMHC in 1953. A commercial housing project was opened in 1954 and the first lodge facility in 1955. The Kiwanis foundation remains active with support from numerous other groups and individuals.
Next year we will celebrate the thirty-fifth anniversary of the opening of the Piper Creek Lodge, which we believe to be the first senior citizens' lodge in Canada.


NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, this week is National Access Awareness Week, a week dedicated to disabled Canadians, a week where communities in Canada are invited to celebrate the accomplishments of disabled persons. This is also a week for assessing the availability of services and facilities for disabled persons and planning improvements for the future.
Mr. Speaker, you are to be congratulated for your consistent support and leadership in making the House of Commons truly accessible to the disabled. Because this week is a time to reflect and plan to improve accessibility for the disabled, I would ask all hon. members to give serious thought to accessibility in their constituencies. Are their offices accessible?
I would urge all members to join some of my New Democrat colleagues and I and take advantage of the service provided by the Secretary of State to have business cards done in Braille.
Celebration of the accomplishments of the disabled is important, but we ought not join the celebration until our own job is done.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Saturday, June 9, 1990 was an important day for Canada. For the first time, Quebec was no longer isolated at the constitutional table.
In today's La Presse, Alain Dubuc wrote in his editorial under the heading "Quebec holds its ground": "The past
week reminded us that Prime Minister Mulroney is one of Quebec's allies. Levesque trusted him in 1984. Six years later, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Mulroney has delivered the goods. Throughout this past week, his attitude was impressive. Mr. Mulroney was a true statesman whose confidence and authority inspired his provincial counterparts to do the impossible".
Mr. Speaker, Canadians today admire the perseverance of the Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney.


NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity today to recognize that Canada is celebrating National Access Awareness Week. While we acknowledge a record of achievement for and by disabled persons, we are nonetheless mindful that there are many initiatives yet to be taken.
It is my hope that by focusing on the economic integration of disabled persons, we shall remove barriers which are preventing complete participation by these Canadians in every facet of our society.
Priorities and initiatives such as those announced recently by the Minister of Transport with respect to transportation are welcomed as evidence of our growing awareness that people with disabilities have been denied access to full participation.
The time has come for the Government of Canada to join in partnership with people with disabilities, the private sector, the voluntary sector, organized labour, and us as members of Parliament to inspire new initiatives aimed at economic integration. Our task will not be complete until every week reflects the initiatives highlighted through National Access Awareness Week.


MINERS' MEMORIAL DAY
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, today, June 11, is Miners' Memorial Day in Cape Breton. This day holds a special place in the hearts of Cape Bretoners as it commemorates the work of coal miners.

The life of a coal miner has changed through the years, but the danger of working underground continues to be a haunting element of that industry.
Today is a day when we recognize the hard work of our miners and remember those who have sacrificed their lives for that industry. Today is an emotional day for many. For some it brings back a sense of pride, and for others it brings back a sense of fear and sadness.
The coal industry has taken many of our miners. Today we reflect with respect, admiration, and a sense of loss upon those men who have died in our mines.
Today we also remember the families of our coal miners: the mothers, the wives, and the children who waited on the surface only to hear their worst fears come true.
On behalf of my constituents in Cape Breton-East Richmond, I salute our Cape Breton miners for their contribution not only to the economy of Cape Breton but also to our culture, our history, and sense of pride on our great island.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Denis Pronovost (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to ask all Quebecers and all Canadians to do just a little more to make our country's future secure.
I wish each and everyone of us would take five minutes to read in full the agreement concluded on the weekend by our first ministers.
Canadians would then realize that the Meech Lake Accord makes everyone a winner.
It is time to stop this constitutional bickering which makes us forget what is really important for our future.
The Meech Lake Accord is not perfect. No constitutional document in the world has ever claimed to be perfect.
We also realize that however honest and sincere our attempts may be, we will never be able to please the Jacques Parizeau's, the Robert Libmans, the leaders of APEC and all those who, while not sharing the same ideology, are intent on defending their own selfish
interests, unlike the majority of Quebecers and Canadians to whom this country still is, and always will be, the most wonderful country in the world.


NATIONAL ACCESS AWARENESS WEEK
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, June 10 to June 20 has been designated as National Access Awareness Week in Prince Edward Island and across the country.
This week is dedicated to creating a greater awareness of the needs of people with disabilities.
Islanders have been active in their commitment for equal access for persons with disabilities by improving designated parking spaces, wheelchair ramps, elevator lifts, and slanted sidewalks.
Islanders began National Access Awareness Week on Saturday with a kick-off party and open house. Other events include the employment "buddy" events, a sports night, as well as a host of other activities.
In order to create greater access and independence for persons with disabilities, we must work at all levels, especially the community level, to make our country the best place to live.
Together, we must ensure the needs of persons with disabilities continue to receive greater access.


TRANSPORT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the free trade agreement and deregulation, the Canadian trucking industry is now moving toward a crisis situation with increasing numbers of truckers facing bankruptcy proceedings.
Competition has become so intense that the rates received by the truckers are insufficient to enable them to provide for their families and at the same time pay for and maintain their vehicles properly. The result is reflected in a spot inspection test done recently in Kamloops, British Columbia on the Trans-Canada Highway, which found one in five trucks unfit to operate, and almost half the trucks checked were failed for various
June 11, 1990

safety violations. Only 30 per cent actually passed inspection.
National safety standards are necessary across the country and they must be enforced. Minimal hauling rates must be established. Proper use of log books must be introduced, and operating authorities must be limited.
In other words a public review of the industry is now necessary, which would lead to re-regulation of the industry. The Minister of Transport should act expeditiously to ensure our trucking industry remains viable and that our highways remain safe.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have been caught up in the Meech Lake drama for days, but if this government thinks for a moment that Canadians have forgotten about the goods and services tax, this government can think again. Canadians are still very upset about this unfair tax.
Last week I received a letter from a constituent of mine who is a hotel owner deeply concerned about the GST. The letter said that the proposed goods and services tax "may be the final straw in an already declining industry". The letter went on to say:
I will also be circulating this information to my employees to let
them know that their jobs may be at risk.
I urge the finance minister to come to his senses and cancel this regressive and unfair tax before it kills thousands of jobs and drives the economy into a recession.


SOUND OF THE FUTURE
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is on the communication frontier once again. I was happy to join the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, the CBC, and the Department of Communications this morning in launching for the first time in North America the Sound of the Future, an historic, digital radio demonstration project in Ottawa.
Digital radio breaks new ground. It will eventually replace the AM-FM band. It will make interferencefree, compact disc quality sound available on radio stations from coast to coast whether in the home, the car or on your portable radio. I can tell all members that the clarity, brilliance and range of the signal I heard this morning were truly magnificent. I could picture young and old alike enjoying everything from country to classical wherever they were through the wonders of digital radio.
In reaching out to bring the future to Canada, this digital radio experiment also proves Canada can remain at the forefront of global change in the communications area. Now the federal government must do its part by convincing governments around the world in 1992 to make room on the spectrum for this new technology. Then Canada can capitalize on the excitement this Canadian project has generated around the world and bring all Canadians the Sound of the Future.


THE ECONOMY
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, this government's economic policies are systematically destroying the manufacturing base of our economy. In the past year alone, 165,000 people in manufacturing have lost their jobs. In my own province of British Columbia, 20,000 manufacturing jobs have been eliminated this year. Who is to blame?
The Minister of State for Privatization told this House last week that workers who have lost their jobs have only themselves to blame. Workers find this hard to believe, as they have seen their real wages decline by 3.5 per cent since 1984, while executives and senior bureaucrats have had increases of 20 per cent to 30 per cent. Small businesses, which are being driven into bankruptcy by high interest rates and an overvalued Canadian dollar, would also dispute the minister's claims.
Businesses are folding, and good, solid jobs are being permanently lost while this government blames the workers and trumpets the creation of "McJobs" with "McWages".
When will this government listen to the people of Canada and work to save our economy instead of blame the taxpayers for all our problems?

June 11, 1990
Oral Questions MEECH LAKE ACCORD


Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the first ministers for their tremendous accomplishment in signing the agreement on the Meech Lake Accord on Saturday, June 9. Support for the Meech Lake agreement is now absolutely unique.
For the first time in history, out of 10 premiers, 13 have now endorsed this agreement, and 13 out of 10 is good at any time.
For the first time in history, the first ministers representing four parties, including Social Credit, Liberal, NDP, and Conservative, have endorsed the constitutional agreement.
For the first time, as far as I know, some premiers invited opposition leaders to attend the conference and play an active role in the results.
For the first time in history, the Prime Minister has signed this agreement not once but twice, not to mention that in this House of Commons we have unanimously had an all-party support for the Meech Lake Accord.
Never in our history has an agreement received such absolute, resounding support by the political leaders of this country representing every party in every corner of the country. I say let us move on now with optimism and enthusiasm and address the many challenges and issues facing us in the future.
On a quick personal note, I just want to say I was there for 16 hours yesterday-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, today I wish to pay tribute to the ten provincial Premiers and the Prime Minister of Canada for their efforts and determination which, on June 9, lead to the ratification of the 1990 Constitutional Agreement, by which first of all, Quebec will now again become a member of the Canadian family.
Technically, to be legal the accord must first be ratified by the legislatures of New Brunswick, Manitoba and Newfoundland. New Brunswick and Manitoba have made it quite clear that they intend to have this accord adopted as soon as possible. The Premier of Newfoundland has just announced his decision to put the Accord to a free vote in his legislature, before June 23.
The Premier of Newfoundland has shown great leadership by honouring the signature he put on the constitutional document on the evening of June 9.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the vast majority of the members of the Newfoundland legislature, like all other legislatures have done, will say yes to Quebec, because they believe in the strength and energy of a united Canada.


CONSERVATIVE PARTY
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River) Mr. Speaker, today is the seventh anniversary of the election of Brian Mulro-ney as the leader of the Conservative Party.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Cooper:: On behalf of our caucus, I would like to say that we appreciate his leadership over the last seven years, his vision and, as was demonstrated over this last week, his patience and love for our country.
Seven is a lucky number. We want to wish our leader and the Prime Minister another seven years in his role as leader of our party and of the country.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. The process by which the Prime Minister and his provincial counterparts met behind closed doors on the weekend to resolve the constitutional impasse was termed unsatisfactory, faulty and imperfect, by the Premiers themselves and the Canadian public. Canadians are convinced that you do not build a country by twisting the arms of reluctant premiers. Under the Accord negotiated on the weekend, the first ministers made a commitment to review the process and include compulsory public hearings. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister or the Acting Prime Minister, whoever is going to reply, what kind of mechanism will be set up to



June 11, 1990

review this process and when the review demanded by Canadians will get into gear.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members are aware, the final decision was signed by Canada's first ministers early Sunday morning. Today is Monday. Prior to the process we want to implement, there will of course be consultation among representatives of the parties here in the House on the most effective ways to give substance to the agreement signed by the Prime Minister of Canada and the provincial premiers.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, a commission with equal representation from each of the provinces and appropriate representation from the federal and territorial governments will study Senate reform and will report before the end of this year.
Will Parliament be asked to approve, by resolution, the federal participation in this commission? Will members of Parliament be included? Will the process include public hearings across the country? When will the process begin?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the next step is to have three legislatures ratify the agreement that was signed deliberately by the 11 heads of government late on Saturday night with their reasons stated that night and early on Sunday morning. That is the next step.
There are a range of details to be worked out. Certainly, it is the intention of this government to work out the details that relate to the House of Commons in close consultation with other parties in the House of Commons.
It is our expectation that there would be a general desire to have the commission to which the hon. member refers begin work early.
Oral Questions


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the proposed Senate changes would reallocate 10 seats; six from Ontario, two from New Brunswick and two from Nova Scotia.
Since this proposed amendment will have great impact on the representation of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in Parliament, can the Acting Prime Minister tell us if this proposed redistribution of Senate seats becomes the floor representation in the House of Commons? In other words, will New Brunswick and Nova Scotia eventually lose House of Commons seats to accommodate this amendment?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as I think the hon. member knows, the proposal to which he refers, which would have the result of a reduction in the Senate representation by Ontario, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia would come only if we were unable, through a process that was agreed by first ministers, to find a basis for a more thorough Senate reform.
I think there is a general understanding and disposition in the House that there needs to be a very serious pursuit by this House and by other Canadians of the goal of Senate reform that was agreed to by all the first ministers in their conference last week.
Certainly, I and the government anticipate that that pursuit will lead to an effective Senate reform. If it does not, there is a procedure set out that would take effect not before 1995. There will be ample time to consult the Acting Leader of the Opposition and his colleagues on that matter.


PUBLIC SECTOR SALARIES
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board and concerns the juicy pay increases and bonuses given to Deputy Ministers and heads of Crown corporations. This will result in $40,000 to $100,000 a year salary increases.
I want to ask the President of the Treasury Board why he told the House on May 11 that the salaries were limited to a 4 per cent increase in 1988 and 4.2 per cent in 1989? Will he now do the right thing and roll back these obscene $100,000 a year increases?

June 11, 1990
Oral Questions


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague asked why I said to the House that the increases for the senior management category for 1988-89 were 4 per cent, and for 1989-90 were 4.2 per cent.
The reason is simple. It is the truth.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, if someone's pay increase was $100,000 a year, imagine the basis it had to be to start with in order to create the 4 per cent.

I have a supplementary for the same minister concerning unethical increases granted certain officials.
I have here a Treasury Board document dated September 1989 indicating ministers' executive assistants received a 17.5 per cent increase over 20 months, while Canadian workers had to make do with 4.2 per cent per year.
Could the minister explain why it is caviar for Tory pals and stale bread for the rest?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would do well to check his facts before asking questions based on hearsay.
The budget for ministers' exempt staff has hardly gone up this year. As I said earlier, the budget for senior managers in the Public Service has increased at the same rate as that for all government employees, including senior officials. I feel I have to mention this because the article on which the hon. member based his claims contains a serious mistake where it says that bonuses are not included in the 4.2 per cent.
I can inform the hon. member that they are included. The 4.2 per cent includes benefits, salaries and bonuses. The wage bill for this group of employees has increased 4.2 per cent, as has the wage bill for unionized employees in the Public Service.
* sfc *


ROUTE CANADA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue.
It was reported this weekend that the former owner of Route Canada withheld employee pension and income tax contributions in order to pay bills to other companies including, I might add, a noted Tory advertising agency.
In the same report, it is alleged that the owner, Manfred Ruhland, was given written authorization from Revenue Canada to not pay $5.4 million in employee tax benefits.
Did Revenue Canada write this letter as claimed, and if so, why? Would it not be an admission on the part of the government that it knew its privatization deal had gone rotten?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, obviously when I read those reports I immediately checked into it. We could find no record of any letter sent by Revenue Canada to Route Canada. We subsequently contacted the solicitors for Route Canada who confirmed to us this morning that, in fact, it was an erroneous statement made by Mr. Ruhland since the solicitors for Route Canada confirmed very categorically that no such letter was sent.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I hear someone say I should not believe everything I read in the paper. I did not. I asked the minister if it was true and he told me otherwise. We will see, over the next few days, what other things might come to light about this particular deal.
I want to ask the Minister of Transport, or whoever is answering for him, about the possibility of tabling the sale agreement between CN and Mr. Ruhland. The minister indicated in the House last Friday that he would be willing to table a letter written by CN explaining the deal. I checked with the Table this morning and that letter had not been tabled.
I ask the government, when it gets around to tabling the letter the minister promised to table, to also table the purchase and sale agreement for Route Canada so we can see just what commitments were sought by CN, what promises were made and by whom with respect to promises of job security that were given to workers and subsequently broken?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour and Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my honourable colleague that the Minister of Transport reported in the House last week that a letter
June 11, 1990

had been sent to The Toronto Star by the vice-president of CN on June 7. It states specifically in paragraph three:
CN, and no one else, decided to sell its subsidiary after discussions with more than 30 companies, beginning in 1985. Our negotiations on the sale were held directly with David Fingold, representing himself and his brother Paul as principal purchasers. Their financial credentials were very solid.
This indicates that the sale was decided by CN, and CN alone.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, is the government saying, and perhaps someone could say this very clearly on behalf of the government, that neither the former Minister of Transport nor any other government official was involved in any way in the negotiations between CN and the buyers prior to the sale of CN Route? Is anyone on the government side willing to stand up and categorically state that the government had nothing to do at any stage with this particular fiasco?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat again what my colleague, the Minister of Transport, has said repeatedly, and no matter how many times the question is asked, the answer is the same; the sale was negotiated by CN officials alone, alone, a-l-o-n-e.



Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
New information about the mismanagement of Route Canada by David and Paul Fingold and Manfred Ruh-land continue to come forward almost on a daily basis. We find out now that over $21 million was owed to employee benefit plans alone.
The question is fairly simple. Does the government not feel a moral, if not legal, obligation to come forward and look after the workers and their families who were seriously affected by this disastrous deal?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, we have in the past looked after the workers. In fact, some of the statements and figures that have come out in this case are quite erroneous.
Oral Questions
In specific answer to the hon. member's specific question, if employees can show that the deductions were made from pay cheques we will, of course, recognize those deductions and give appropriate credits. That has not been the case in the past.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. Included in that $21 million I just mentioned was $3.5 million in direct pension benefits, $3.7 million in workers' compensation payments owed to several provinces, and $3.9 million in income tax deducted at source.
The Fingolds and Ruhland ripped off eight unions, eight provinces, and Revenue Canada, but more important, they ripped off 1,900 workers and their immediate families. The amount owing the workers and their families is peanuts compared to the over-all picture of what has transpired in the sale of CN Route.
I ask the government once again, will it stop hiding behind this charade of a sale, show some compassion and caring and compensate the families and the workers affected by this terrible disaster?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my hon. friend that when Labour Canada learned that CN Route was going to close its operations in September, 1988, we immediately proceeded to audit the company's records under Part III of the code.
I am happy to report that we were instrumental in ensuring that employees received their wages owed up to the time of closing and vacation entitlements of $1.6 million.
We also instituted, under the Canada Labour Code, charges against the employer for failure to comply with the group termination provisions of the code and the company was eventually fined by the courts $10,000 on each of seven counts. After that the company went into bankruptcy and therefore this has become a procedure under the Bankruptcy Act to pay back the creditors.


PUBLIC SECTOR SALARIES
Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. In an answer he gave earlier this afternoon, he indicated that somehow a bonus is not a bonus. It seems

June 11, 1990
Oral Questions
to me if it looks like a pay increase, acts like a pay increase and, above all, spends like a pay increase, it is an increase.
The government has managed to increase the salary range for its highest paid employees by 31 per cent in the last three years while keeping the majority of its employees well below the rate of inflation, below 12 per cent, over the same period of time. Why is the minister being so outrageously generous with the best paid public servants in the land and so miserly with the rest?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I gave the numbers a few days ago and I will give the numbers again. For the senior management category in the Public Service the increase in total compensation, including bonuses, benefits, and salary, was 4 per cent in 1988-89 and 4.2 per cent in 1989-90. That is well in keeping with the pay increases that have been negotiated through collective bargaining for the rest of the Public Service.
Those, Mr. Speaker, are the real numbers.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board can ignore the real figures if he wants to. However, when the government is telling public servants and all Canadian workers they have to tighten their belts to make up for its mismanagement, how can he have a different message entirely for those who are the best paid and the least affected by the negative financial policies of the government?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I guess there is some advantage to having written notice of questions. I have said quite clearly in the House on numerous occasions now that the treatment afforded the senior management category-


John Harvard: Just tell the truth.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, this is the truth. These are the numbers. The treatment given in terms of compensation for the senior management group in the federal Public Service is roughly the same as or very close to the treatment that was negotiated through the collective bargaining process.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My question is with regard to the same issue, Mr. Speaker. The Minister of Finance said the other day: "I don't believe labour
should ask for more". That was in terms of compensation. He said: "The government will set an example for the private sector".
We were reminded some time ago that the Governor of the Bank of Canada and his staff gave themselves what can only be described as obscene increases as a result of being the major inflation fighter for the country. Then we find out that the heads of our 13 largest Crown corporations received between 15 per cent and 25 per cent pay increases.
Now we find that, to quote the President of the Treasury Board, "certain senior public servants received bonuses far beyond 4 per cent in terms of salary increases". That is selected senior public servants.
What signal does the Minister of Finance plan to send? Certain senior public servants are receiving huge increases, up to 30 per cent over three years. The Bank of Canada staff is given huge increases. The heads of our major Crown corporations are receiving increases of 30 per cent over two years.
What kind of a signal was the Minister of Finance referring to with these incredible salary and bonus increases?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I think it is useful to remind my hon. colleague that the management compensation package that is offered in the federal Public Service as well as in the Crown corporations is based on recommendations from a private sector commission that was appointed by the former government.
That commission had as its mandate to study the responsibilities and the functions of senior public servants and heads of Crown corporations and to compare those to the private sector to make sure that we could have a compensation package that was responsible in the total environment of the economy.
Increases are kept within an over-all range that corresponds to what is done in terms of collective bargaining. Some may get more, some will not. But we have to make sure that we retain our managers, that we retain the heads of our Crown corporations, and that the compensation package is fair and equitable throughout the system.
June 11, 1990


MANUFACTURING SECTOR
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. We found out on the weekend that Statistics Canada revealed that 165,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector were lost last year. The minister responsible for privatization said over the weekend that this was the result of greedy and lazy workers.
Does the Minister of Finance support those incredible comments by the minister responsible for privatization, or will he admit that the 165,000 jobs lost is more a reflection of his high interest rate policy and the free trade deal?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would like it very much if the hon. member would table in the House where he got those words that he attributed to the Minister of State for Privatization. My understanding is that those words were never stated by the minister. They were some interpretation, if anything, by a journalist.
The very point we have been making as a government is that the cost structure of the economy has to be maintained intact or our ability to create jobs will be undermined.
In 1989 the unit labour costs of business in Canada started at an increase of 4.9 per cent. They ended the year increasing at 6.9 per cent. Throughout that same period of time in the United States they were level at about 4.9 per cent and they are a good deal lower in Japan and Germany.
If we lose our competitive position, we will lose business. If we lose business, we will lose jobs. It is for that precise reason that we have been taking the position that we have as a government to encourage business, labour, consumers, and all Canadians to do everything they can to maintain that competitive position.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing -Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for whoever is answering for the Minister for International Trade.
Oral Questions
The unjustifiable 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber and an artificially inflated Canadian dollar propped up by high interest rates has taken 30 per cent off the top of the income of the lumber manufacturers and has caused massive job losses.
When is the minister going to negotiate his way out of the 15 per cent tax on softwood lumber? When will he talk to his Minister of Finance in order to bring some sanity back into the interest rate policy of the government in order to give the Canadian lumber industry a fighting chance to survive?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as I think the hon. member knows from answers in the House, the government has put the United States on notice that we intend to return to discussion of the memorandum of understanding on softwood lumber. My colleague, the Minister for International Trade, as recently as the middle of May-I think May 18-in Toronto raised this issue again with American officials.
Naturally there have to be discussions with the industry and with the provinces in order to ensure that the Canadian side is in a position to negotiate effectively the issues raised by the memorandum of understanding. Those negotiations are being pursued.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the town of Renfrew has lost more than 1,400 industrial jobs in recent times, some of which can be directly related to free trade and others due to that famous term "industrial rationalization". It is a disastrous situation.
When is the government going to bring out its free trade adjustment programs which it promised to assist communities in Canada that are going through these horrendous economic problems with sordid times for many homes?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position today, as the acting minister, to give a precise answer to that precise question. I will inquire as to the government's timetable and will advise the hon. member.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we see today the joint statement by the Presidents of Mexico and the United States initiating trade discussions between those two countries leading, as they say, to a new comprehensive trade agreement.

June 11, 1990
Oral Questions
We understand that such negotiations will have substantial and major impact upon Canada and the trade agreement that we have with the United States.
In light of this announcement today, can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us what the government response is to the statement? Is the government prepared to share with the House and the public studies and analyses to show what impact it will have upon Canada so Canadians will have some understanding of the significance of this announcement today?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from my friend with respect to the possibility of some arrangement being reached between the United States and Mexico. He will know that there were questions raised in the House on the basis of incomplete information at an earlier time. Those questions might have had the effect of alarming Canadians about a sudden rush to an agreement, either between the Americans and the Mexicans or an agreement that might have implications for Canada.
What was agreed, as he would know from reading the communique from the President of Mexico and the President of the United States, is simply that they have directed two of their representatives, Carla Hills and Dr. Serra Puche, to undertake consultations and preparatory work which will allow the two presidents, when they meet in December, to consider whether they want to proceed.
As to Canada's position, we are keeping in very close touch on a bilateral basis, with Mexico on the one hand and with the United States on the other hand, to see what impact there might be upon Canada's interest.


An Hon. Member:: How close is close?


Charles Joseph Clark: I am asked how close is close. We have had very close consultations with the governments of both countries so that we will be in a position to judge whether the Canadian interest is affected.
The member asks me if there will be an opportunity for consultation with the House. My colleague, the Minister for International Trade, is scheduled to appear before the standing committee later this month. He looks forward to the opportunity to discuss with the hon. member and other members of the committee the
questions that are raised by this agreement between the Americans and the Mexicans.


Lloyd Axworthy: On a
supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify. I did not ask about consultation, I asked about direct public participation and open hearings in Parliament.
In view of the fact that this process will now be of a preliminary nature until December, can we get a commitment from the government today, first, that it will make public all its own studies and impact analyses that have taken place thus far and, second, that no decision of any kind will be taken by this government to involve Canada in any discussion or negotiation until there is an opportunity for this Parliament to hold open public hearings and to make a decision on what that participation should be?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the Mexicans and the Americans have decided to discuss whether they would enter into an agreement. That is where things are. The member is asking me if I have an impact study of their intention to discuss. Of course I do not, but if the hon. member is seriously interested in ensuring that there is a broadly based discussion in Canada as to the implications to Canada of any agreement that might be entered into between the Mexicans and the Americans, of course we agree with that.
I just said to him that my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, will be appearing before the standing committee in the normal course in the next couple weeks. He would look forward to discussing this matter with the hon. member and with others. We would welcome views expressed by affected industries, by provinces and by interested Canadians. We want any decisions that Canada takes to be based upon full information and informed public opinion and not to be based upon the kinds of fears that some members of the House were seeking to raise not very many weeks ago.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. General Motors has demanded of the workers in Windsor that they substitute Memorial Day for Victoria Day, American Thanksgiving for Canadian Thanks-
June 11, 1990

giving, and Independence Day for Canada Day. This is a condition to keep their jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Get serious.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: It is serious, it's bloody serious.
Will the Acting Prime Minister send a letter to the president of General Motors with a calendar showing Canadian holidays and a map indicating the territorial limits of our country and tell them that as a condition of doing business in Canada they obey Canadian laws and respect Canadian traditions?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not contest the information put on the record of the House by the hon. member. I have not had the opportunity to see it myself. Certainly it seems to me that a proposal of that kind is pretty unreasonable. That would be the view which the Government of Canada, were it in our jurisdiction, would express.
I would certainly hope that persons with whom the hon. member may have influence, Bob White among others, might also be encouraged to stand up for Canada on this issue.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister will know that I think it is outrageous for him to suggest that Bob White be more Canadian after they sold the countiy out with a free trade deal that gives American companies the opportunity to tiy to impose on Canadian workers American holidays. Maybe next we will have to swear allegiance to the American flag.
Will the Acting Prime Minister serve notice that this is not an appropriate kind of harmonization under the free trade agreement and that the cost of doing business in Canada for any American-owned company is to obey Canadian law and respect Canadian traditions?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is doing violence to his reputation for sobriety and calm, rational argument in the House.
Oral Questions
But he raises an issue that is, of course, important, and that has to do with the extraterritorial application of foreign law, American or any other, in this country. That is the principle that this government very vigorously opposes. We have done that in a number of cases, most recently, as the hon. member will know, with respect to attempts made by certain congressmen of the United States to take actions with regard to Cuba that would have an implication upon Canada.
That principle with respect to extraterritorial reality is of great importance to this government. We have defended it vigorously in the past and we will in the future.
He is raising another kind of issue. I have noted it and I have expressed my opinion, not my acting opinion but my opinion as Acting Prime Minister on the issue, and I will consider whether it would be useful to make a more formal communication to the parties involved.

Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Mr. Speaker, I should like to get back to the question raised earlier by my colleague concerning the agreement between the United States and Mexico. I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Canadians remember that the Prime Minister saddled the country with a comprehensive trade agreement with the United States after campaigning against the idea in 1984. This badly negotiated agreement gave rise to a very emotional debate in Canada, and now we learn that one of the results of this agreement was the loss of 172,000 jobs in the manufacturing sector. Will the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that Canadians will indeed be consulted before we enter into similar negotiations with the United States and Mexico?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): First, there are no negotiations involving Canada, Mexico and the United States. In fact, there are no negotiations between the Americans and the Mexicans. The presidents of both countries have agreed to consider whether such negotiations ought to be undertaken. Earlier today I told the House that the Canadian

June 11, 1990
Oral Questions
government is keeping in close touch with Mexico and the United States to determine whether this might have an impact on Canada. If so, and under the circumstances, Canada will have to make a decision. I said that my colleague the Minister for International Trade intends to meet with standing committee members to discuss this issue. I believe I gave clear answers to the questions raised by the hon. member.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, we know there has not been an agreement. We are just putting the government on notice that the Canadian people want to be consulted fully before any major decision is taken on this matter of vital Canadian interest. That is the only point of this question. That is why we are asking the question now before the government determines its position without consulting Canadians as has been the case in the past.
So I re-ask the question: what form of participation does the Acting Prime Minister have in mind for consulting Canadians on this question?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let us look at the record of consultations on trade negotiations of Liberal governments and Progressive Conservative governments.
When this country entered the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade in the 1940s under a Liberal government, the matter was not brought to Parliament, it was not brought to the public, it was decided by the government as executive order ignoring the provinces, ignoring Parliament and ignoring the public. When the free trade agreement was introduced, as this country and the House know, there were the most extensive possible negotiations.
We do not know if there will be negotiations between the United States and Mexico or whether Canada's interest will be affected. But if Canada's interests are to be affected, those will be discussed by this government with the people of Canada in the consultative tradition of the Progressive Conservative Party and not in the secretive tradition of the Liberal Party.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FISHERIES
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. As part of his response to the inshore draggers' 1990 quota allocation proposal the minister has brought in 130 millimetre square mesh for the inshore draggers on Georges Bank.
If the minister accepts that the large mesh size is a better conservation measure, why then is it not mandatory for the large offshore boats which are also fishing on Georges Bank and which are catching hundreds of thousands of pounds per trip?

Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, there is no suggestion from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to take any action whose sole purpose would be to hurt our inshore fishermen on the Atlantic coast.

This suggestion that we will try to impose measures that will cause harm or trouble to the inshore fishery and leave the offshore to rape the resources and do whatever they want, is completely-

-I dare not use the word-

But we will not do that of course. I can assure the hon. member that we will be trying to work out the implementation of these conservation measures with both sectors of the fishery in Atlantic Canada, the inshore and the offshore.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, I will repeat my question because I think the minister misunderstood.
At present the inshore fleet is using 130 millimetre square mesh brought in for this fishery by the minister for those boats under 65 feet which are allowed to fish there at certain times. The offshore, which can catch up to 400,000 pounds of fish a trip, is fishing at the same time, side by side, and it does not have the same 130 millimetre square mesh. In fact, it has diamond mesh which is very destructive.
June 11, 1990

I agree with the minister that we need conservation. But I do not see the reasoning for the small boat enforcing conservation while the large boat is not. I do not see how it is reasonable for one fleet, which is catching hundreds of thousands of pounds per trip, to be without it. I do not see how you can explain that to the people. If there is a reason for it I would like to hear it from the minister.


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I could play with the issue and ask the hon. member why, when they restructured the offshore back in 1982 and 1983, these measures which she now advocates against the offshore sector to protect the inshore were not taken. However, I know this would not add much to the debate.
The important thing is that we have to take measures to conserve our resources in the Atlantic Ocean. From my conversations with both the inshore and the offshore sectors we have determined to work together to implement measures to do that.
The hon. member suggests that within a matter of days or weeks we can turn around a whole way of harvesting fish. She knows that that is not possible. There has to be consultation and this is what we are doing with the fishermen. If we were not doing that, she would criticize me for not doing it.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who suggested that somehow there is something hypothetical about these Mexican-United States talks, that they are talks to talk about whether to talk or not.
I want to quote from the communique which comes from the Embassy of Mexico which says: "The two Presidents have determined that a comprehensive free trade agreement is the best vehicle to achieve their ambitious objectives and, therefore, agree to move toward that end".
Oral Questions
Does the Secretary of State for External Affairs not recognize, with this kind of commitment on the part of the two senior political leaders from these two countries, that it is time for Canada to get its act together and start taking a position? Will the minister tell the House what is the position of this country with respect to these talks?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, for the third time, I hope that I am neither hypothetical nor hysterical in the House.
There has been an agreement by the Presidents of two other countries in this hemisphere to pursue the possibilities of a trade agreement. The hon. member read with remarkable clarity the communique jointly issued by the Presidents of Mexico and of the United States.
The position of Canada is to determine what impact, if any, those negotiations, if they occur, may have upon Canada's interests. If there is an impact upon Canada, we will then determine what course it is best to follow.
I was asked three questioners ago whether or not the government would be prepared to consult with parliamentarians as to how we might proceed. I have answered that my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, will be before the standing committee in the next couple of weeks. I hope the hon. member is there and I hope by that time he has a new question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Essex-Windsor, a short supplemental.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I hope by that time the Secretary of State for External Affairs has actually read what has come from the Embassy of Mexico and from the President of the United States.
I ask the minister if, as in the case of the free trade negotiations with the United States, he is prepared to see established in this Parliament a special committee to investigate the various ramifications of this negotiation which is already taking place, or is this government simply going to sit back until such time as General Motors starts to ask Canadian workers to take a holiday on September 15, Mexican Independence Day?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I really feel sorry for the poor hon.

June 11, 1990
Routine Proceedings
member that he does not have a question of his own; he has to borrow the question from the member for Winnipeg South Centre, or he has to borrow a line from his colleague. I have answered his question.
If Canadian interests are affected in these discussions, then Canada will develop a policy designed to protect Canada's interests. There will be consultations with Parliament. Those consultations, as I have said three times now in the House, this is the fourth, will begin when my colleague, the Minister for International Trade, meets with the standing committee later this month.
If there are particular proposals as to means of discussion that the hon. member wants to put forward, then I hope that he would take the opportunity of that committee hearing or other opportunities in the House to make that kind of suggestion.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Andre:: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, as was committed to by the Deputy Prime Minister last Friday, would like to come into the House and make a statement respecting the Meech Lake negotiations.
There has been a little bit of a delay. Normally that would be done under statements by ministers, but the Prime Minister will not be able to come until about four o'clock.
There have been discussions with the opposition and I think you will find unanimous agreement to revert to statements by ministers for the purpose of hearing from the Prime Minister and the opposition leaders at about four o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the proposition by the hon. government House leader. Is there agreement?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I started to rise before you put the question. Is this going to be an ordinary ministerial statement with only the House leaders responding, or will there also be an opportunity for other members to make comments on such a matter?


Mr. Speaker:: According to the proposal put forward by the hon. government House leader, he asked the House to agree that we would revert to statements by ministers at four o'clock and we would be then bound by the usual rule which is that the minister, in this case the right hon.
the Prime Minister, would speak and there would be a response from each of the spokespersons of the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party in exactly equal time. That is the rule and that is what the House has agreed to.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I have received written notice from the hon. member for Hillsborough that he is unable to move his motion during Private Members' Hour on Tuesday, June 12, 1990.

The motion having been designated as votable, it is not possible to make an exchange in the order of precedence, pursuant to Standing Order 94.1 order the Clerk to move this item to the bottom of the order of precedence.

Private Members' Hour will thus be cancelled and, pursuant to Standing Order 94, the House will continue with the business before it prior to that hour.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 31 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Manicouagan):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), I have the honour to present today a report prepared by the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources further to the study on the report entitled, "Energy and Canadians-Into the 21st Century".
June 11, 1990

[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



AERONAUTICS ACT


Harvie Andre: for leave to introduce Bill C-76, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to amend an Act to amend the Aeronautics Act.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the hon. minister have leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-77, An Act to amend the Immigration Act.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to grant the minister leave to introduce the bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-313, An Act to establish a national highways system and a national highways authority.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the bill?
Routine Proceedings


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Daniel Nault: Madam Speaker, it is my intention to introduce this bill for the specific reason of rectifying a flaw that we have in our national system. Under the present act, the National Transportation Act, there is no mention of the highways that we have to be called the national highways system of this country. I would like to make the explanation short, so that we can hopefully go on to debate vhis bill in the House. I hope all members will get involved in this debate, if it is accepted.
We are presently at a point where our roads are deteriorating quickly and the highway system is doing a disservice to the economic development of Canada.
It is hoped that by introducing this bill that the debate will enhance the process. It is also hoped that members will understand that without a national highway system, the national government cannot enhance regional development in all parts of the country. I am hoping, Madam Speaker, that you will allow us another opportunity to discuss this further, at which time it is my intention to explain in detail how important this is to Canada.


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

Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a large number of constituents from Kamloops, British Columbia, as well as other communities in western Canada, who are opposed to the goods and services tax being implemented by the government.
They point out a whole set of reasons why they oppose the tax. Basically, it will increase their cost of living which will result, presumably, in higher interest rates.
I am going to add a little section saying that they would like to call on the Liberal senators to kill the tax by voting against the bill.
To be fair, Madam Speaker, it does not say that in here, but I know that if they were here, they would want me to say that.

June 11, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition which has been signed by hundreds of residents of my constituency of Burnaby-Kingsway. The petition includes the names of teachers, staff and students at Burnaby North Secondary School who are expressing their concern about the Minister of Finance's proposed goods and services tax as an unfair form of taxation because it forces small businesses to carry a disproportionate share of the tax burden.
The petitioners point out that the tax will prove an implementation nightmare for small businesses, that it does not address the concerns of small business with regard to the manufacturing sales tax, and they call upon Parliament to reject the proposed goods and services tax, to consult with business, labour and consumer groups to reach a broad consensus on reform of the tax system before implementing alternatives to the manufacturers' sales tax.
Finally, they call upon Parliament to ensure that there is real reform of the tax system to provide a healthy climate for small business in Canada.
I present these signatures on behalf of the students and teachers of Burnaby North Secondary School. I congratulate them for their initiative in collecting the names for this petition.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Madam Speaker, I once again rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 and present a petition which shows that people across Canada are against the goods and services tax.
In this particular case, people from the area in Ontario around Chesterville have signed the petition in great numbers, advising this government that they too, like the people in my province of British Columbia, are against the goods and services tax, and they want the government to implement a taxation system that is based on fairness to all Canadians, not just to the corporate and wealthy friends of the government.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by hundreds of residents of the province of Newfoundland, a petition gathered by my hon. and gallant colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.
The petitioners, from communities such as Harbour Grace, Bryants Cove, Salvage, Bishop's Cove, Gooseberry Cove, and other communities in Newfoundland, oppose the government's proposal to introduce a goods and services tax. They feel that 31 tax increases in five disastrous Tory years are more than enough, and they call upon Parliament to reject this unfair and unjust tax.
[Translation\


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: The day before the vote on Bill C-43, Madam Speaker, I received a petition to be presented to the House of Commons urging Parliament to pass legislation to protect life from the moment of conception, legislation which would seek to save the lives of both mother and child at the same time.
The signatories wanted me to present the petition that very day, but unfortunately it had not been certified. So I am pleased today to present, on behalf of my constituents who claim the right to be heard in the House of Commons, this petition duly certified by the Clerk of the House.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Madam Speaker, I rise today under Standing Order 36 to present a petition signed by some of my constituents who are very concerned about the poor condition of wharfs and harbours in Prince Edward Island.
This petition states that the Government of Canada has not maintained its responsibilities to the maintenance of wharfs and harbours in Atlantic Canada and that many of the wharfs in Prince Edward Island are in a deplorable and unsafe state and require major repairs.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to evaluate the state of wharfs and harbours, proceed with the necessary maintenance and repair, and ensure the safety and future of the fishery of Prince Edward Island.


Lynn Hunter: Madam Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present two petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36, both from
June 11, 1990

Saanich-Gulf Islands and both from the Mayne Island portion of that riding.
These petitions are expressing my constituents' outrage at the imposition of the goods and services tax and are calling upon Parliament to withdraw this bill, Parliament consisting not only of the House of Commons but also the Senate, I am sorry to say.
Until that revision of our Constitution is intact, I call upon Parliament, consisting of the House of Commons and the Senate, to withdraw the bill on behalf of my constituents.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-69, an Act to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-69. First of all, however, I would like to congratulate the Prime Minister of Canada on his concluding, for the second time, an agreement that is historic both for Quebec and the rest of the country. I also would like to emphasize the work done by the ten Premiers, and I think that is appropriate considering the subject of Bill C-69 which deals with transfers to the provinces.
Government Orders
Madam Speaker, Bill C-69 has various objectives and follows announcements by the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board, with respect to cutbacks in government spending. There will be cuts totalling $3 billion in 1990-91, and $3.8 billion in 1991-92, all of which will cut directly into government spending. This means we have a projected deficit of $28.5 billion for 1990-91 and $26.8 billion for 1991-92.
Madam Speaker, since 1984, this government has started managing the country the way it should be managed, by reducing the annual deficit, which was enormous, and at the same time gradually getting the national debt under control, a debt that was a legacy from the previous government.
So there have been cuts, madam Speaker, including cuts in transfers to the provinces. However, we should be careful when we talk about transfers to the provinces, because often people tend to confuse Established Programs Financing with equalization. Quebec, for instance, receives under Established Programs Financing, certain amounts of money, like all the other provinces. As you know, all provinces receive the same amount per capita under this program.
Furthermore, Madam Speaker, as you know, equalization payments are only paid to certain provinces. These are amounts of money for provinces who are considered the most in need. And Quebec is one of those provinces.
If we look at the figures for 1989-90, the province of Quebec will receive $9.9 billion. In 1990-91, this will be $10.3 billion, and in 1991-92, $10.6 billion. Madam Speaker, this means an increase of about 3 per cent per year. I agree the increase is not as high as the province or other provinces might have expected. However, as a result of Draconian measures we had to take to control the government's annual deficit and the growing national debt, we had to announce a number of reductions in annual increases received by the provinces.
Bill C-69 confirms that the provinces will receive more money next year than they are getting this year, and it also confirms federal participation in helping the provinces.
Madam Speaker, I may point out that since 1977, the provinces have the right to spend the money they receive from the federal government at their own discretion.

June 11, 1990
Government Orders
This means, and I am taking Quebec as an example, if the province receives $10.3 billion in 1990-91, it can invest that money in hospitals, schools, highways, daycare-whatever. That is its personal decision as a province. British Columbia can do the same, and Newfoundland as well. These are sums of money that are allocated in terms of the needs and expectations of each province, but itis strictly discretionary spending.
Madam Speaker, I believe this bill should be passed as soon as possible so that we can get on with our legislative and economic agenda.


Joy Langan: Madam Speaker, one thing has become tragically clear as this government's mandate unfolds. Put simply, the Minister of National Health and Welfare has surrendered, without a fight, his responsibility for social policy in this country. It is clear that it is the Minister of Finance who now makes social policy for this government.
What is the result of this abdication of responsibility by the Minister of National Health and Welfare? It is Bill C-21, which will punish the unemployed for this government's failure to come up with a full employment policy. It is Bill C-28, which ends the universality of old age pension and family allowance. It is Bill C-69, which saddles the poor of this country with a disproportionate share of the national debt and which threatens the future viability of our health care system and our post-secondary institutions.
This process, most aptly described as social policy by stealth, has resulted in the polarization of Canadians. The facts are that what we are witnessing is a drastic decline in the numbers who can be considered in the middle class in this country. We are seeing more poor and more rich, with the disappearance of those in the middle; more highly paid jobs and more poorly paid jobs; more children and single parents living in deep poverty; and more people with only a part-time or marginal attachment to the workforce.
This bill, which the government is ramming through, is illustrative of the re-emergence of the Conservative belief in an ordered society, a society of haves and have-nots, a society of rich and poor. It is a rejection of
the concept of collective entitlement and an embracing of paternalism.
The government asks that we all share in the strong medicine needed to control the deficit, but its actions betray its words. This government does not spread the burden equitably but punishes and overburdens those least able to cope.
In this House, as reported at page 10673 of Hansard, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance stated:
The effort that we are requiring from the population with the cuts and the tax hikes is a collective effort on the part of all Canadians. We are asking eveiyone of them, whatever the province they live in, to share in this collective effort-
However, is this the case, Madam Speaker? Is everyone being asked to share? Of course not?
Bill C-69 is a direct attack on the income support of poor Canadians. It is a direct attack on those who are least able to put food on the table, to clothe and house their children, to find meaningful employment. This government has not gone after the incomes of the wealthy. It has not even sought out the deferred taxes of profitable corporations. It has sought out the powerless and gone after them.
As reported at page 10672 of Hansard, the parliamentary secretary also had the following to say about the ceiling placed on Canada Assistance Plan payments by this bill:
The expenditure control plan will not affect the amount received by low income Canadian men and women.
Where in this bill are we to find this? Are we simply to take the word of the parliamentary secretary? 6 the purpose of this bill is to control expenditure, how can he say that it will not affect the amount received by poor Canadians?
The stated purpose of this bill is to force the provinces to absorb a greater share of the national debt. How, one must ask, are they to do that if they do not cut expenditures? How can the parliamentary secretary claim that no one will suffer a loss in income if the provinces are forced to cut income support payments because of the federal government's reneging on its constitutional and contractual responsibility to cost share these expenditures?
June 11, 1990

It is evident to all who care to look that to live on social assistance is to live in poverty. Absolutely nowhere in this country are social assistance rates above the poverty line, no matter which poverty line is used.
The shallowness of understanding demonstrated by members opposite is even more clear when one reads the words of the chair of the finance committee, as reported at page 10551 of Hansard, who had the following to say about Bill C-69:
This bill is a sensible bill because it comes to grips with the EPF, the
CAP, the growth of expenditures and the transfers made from the
federal government to the provinces.
No reference is made to the abandonment of the poor, the abandonment of universality, the abandonment of the social safety net.
The difficulty with the observation of the chair of the finance committee is that it ignores the facts. The Canada Assistance Plan is not a transfer to the provinces; it is a transfer to individuals. The federal government writes the cheque to the province, but what it is paying for is previously agreed upon services and income support payments to those Canadians who are in dire need of this support.
To claim that the cap on CAP is an attempt to control transfers to provinces is to indulge in a purposeful misunderstanding of the Canada Assistance Plan and how it is used by the provinces.
The chairman of the finance committee went on to say on the same page that:
We cannot pay our bills by encouraging profligacy in the hands of
the provinces.
Profligacy means recklessly extravagant. Again, I hope through ignorance rather than a deliberate attempt to mislead, the hon. member reflects the dearth of knowledge on the government side of the House.
Payments made under the Canada Assistance Plan are demand led expenditures. They come from the commitment made by the provinces and the federal government to assist individuals in providing the most basic requirements of life for themselves and their families.
These expenditures are the result of the requirements of the act to provide services having as their object the lessening, removal or prevention of the causes and effects of poverty, child neglect or dependence on public
Government Orders
assistance. Is the hon. member, his party, or the minister actually suggesting that the provinces are being recklessly extravagant in their spending in these areas?
Are they suggesting that neglected children should suffer while this government kisses the ring of the knobby finger of corporate Canada? The finance committee heard witnesses representing 20 groups and organizations, many of which are national organizations.
From these groups not one came before the committee to praise Bill C-69. They came to buiy it. It needs to be noted that they often sat before the committee without the benefit of a single Tory member of the committee, save for the chair of that committee.
The absence of Tories from the committee room provided real and tangible evidence of the lack of concern this government has for the poor, for our universities and colleges and for our health care system. It demonstrated in more than a symbolic way the lack of understanding and caring which is becoming the hallmark of this government.
Before the committee, the Minister of State for Finance made much of his government's plan to get its fiscal house in order and that Bill C-69 represented a way to have the provinces share in that responsibility. It has chosen to do so by limiting its constitutional, contractual and moral responsibilities.
The government has chosen to do so despite the overwhelming evidence provided by a series of government-sponsored studies which demonstrate in unequivocal terms that the Canada Assistance Plan works. It is an effective and efficient use of government resources, and any changes to the Canada Assistance Plan should be made in co-operation with the provinces and those responsible for the delivery of the services covered by CAP.
Such changes should not be ad hoc as they are in this bill, but ones that provide for improved service delivery and a real commitment to getting people off welfare. It should not be a kind of punitive, mean-spirited measure that we see in this bill.
The most recently completed study of the Canada Assistance Plan is now in the hands of the minister, and one cannot help but wonder why he is permitting Bill C-69 to go ahead when he knows it will threaten the most basic component of our social safety net, when he knows that no one in this country with any knowledge of

June 11, 1990
Government Orders
CAP supports the imposition of a ceiling on federal expenditures.
This study brought together acknowledged experts on CAP and this is what they had to say: "CAP is something that is really the best we have got right now. If anything, we should look at improving it rather than taking shots at it."
Another said: "CAP has been called the best example of co-operative federalism-.The province's inputs were respected-.and they were committed to a new approach of social assistance which would eliminate all the vestiges of the poor law and make the concept of need really meaningful."
A third quote is: "The impact of CAP has been enormous-for good or for ill, anything that existed before was incredibly punitive-.It was a terrible, terrible system-.The level of brutality was spectacular."
A final quote is: "I would like to state that if anything happens to the CAP agreement and the transfer monies-effect on the provinces in the next five years would be chaotic. It would be one of the most disastrous things Ottawa could ever do."
Those quotes are from references submitted to the Program Audit Review directorate of Health and Welfare Canada by the DPA group incorporated.
I would suggest that it is the desire of the government to return to the brutality that is referred to in those quotes, to see a return to the belief which pervaded the poor laws, a belief which regarded the disadvantaged as at fault for their plight.
If this government was really concerned about saving money it would look to creative and positive ways to alleviate poverty in this country. It would be supportive of the provinces in their attempt to deliver the services low-income Canadians need. It would embrace a policy of full employment. This bill proposes to cut short that creativity and sentence the poor in Canada to further hardship. In short, this bill needs to be defeated.
In closing I would like to make reference to an article in The Globe and Mail of June 7, written by Hovi Echenberg from NAPO:
So, despite the silence of ministers traditionally playing the lead in
social-policy changes, the web of federal policy initiatives has
changed things for the worse for people at the edges of the marketplace. It may be that what used to be a safety net is becoming a trap, or even a noose, for Canada's poor.
In British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario, the provincial governments will resist real increases in social assistance income levels because, for the first time in more than 20 years, these increases will not be cost shared by the federal government. In these same provinces, the same limit on cost sharing will likely preclude new child care spaces, or increased civil legal aid services to support appeals of any disentitlement.
In every province in Canada, low income people will likely find that few health services are insured under medicare. Whether annual physicals, ambulance services or drugs prescribed during a hospital stay, new costs will be borne by individuals. Affordable housing units will be slower to come by on the market, as federal funding for non-profit housing programs is reduced.
Madam Speaker, my caucus agrees with Hovi Echenberg when she says that the safety net is becoming a trap, or even a noose, for the poor.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to my colleague from Mission-Coquitlam and I would like to compliment her on a very thoughtful presentation of the arguments. It was very well thought through.
I join her and members of my caucus to speak on Bill C-69, an act respecting restraint of government expenditures. This bill implements four measures for budget restrictions announced in the budget of February 1990. First there is the freeze to federal transfer payments to the provinces for post-secondary education and health care under the Established Program Financing. Second, there is the limit on the increase of federal transfer payments to Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta under the Canada Assistance Plan, which includes social programs. Third, there is the elimination of the Canada Exploration Incentives Program which affects mining, gas and oil industries. Fourth, is the measure that freezes public utilities income tax transfers over the next two years.
This bill represents, in a sense, the entire lack of balance in this government's approach between what I have always called two important pillars of Canada: economic opportunity and social justice. In my view, the two must be pursued simultaneously for both are critical objectives if we are to have the kind of Canada we have always striven for.
June 11, 1990

To forsake one for the interests of the other is to fail. To blindly fight the deficit without regard for the human and social toll is also to fail as a government and ultimately as a society.
Yet, that is this government's approach, as this bill demonstrates. This government concerns itself solely with the deficit at the expense of all else. While concerning itself with the economic side of the balance, pursuing deficit reduction and what it calls economic stability, it is forgetting how important it is to have social stability and a truly caring society.
There is no question that the people of this country need policies that are fiscally sound. They need to address the deficit. They also need policies that have no regard to class or place but provide for equitable consideration. Only our government can be expected to serve as that dependable link and ensure non-discrimination between the densely populated areas of our country and small-town Canada. Towns and villages should not be preferred over our cities, or prosperous communities to the less fortunate. Equality of service has been a valued Canadian hallmark and it seems to me that it is being eroded on a daily basis. A wonderful safety net is becoming less and less so.
The government has not seen it this way. I believe it has chosen to disrupt, to dismantle and even destroy much of this country's vital infrastructure, conceived to answer our very unique geography. Our huge land mass, with communities of varying sizes dispersed around this vast region, many sparsely settled, all need service. Be it social service, education or health, they have to be shared with our provinces; be it the national mandate on job skills, retraining, communications and transportation, these are all the key elements in the building and linking of our people to ensure a bright future and a sense of national unity.
The government has cut back on the CBC. It says this was needed to fight the deficit, forgetting that it is a bridge for Canadians to bring a national voice to all parts of this land, with the technology and vital infrastructure which brings about an informed Canadian society.
Today, I was pleased to participate in the launching of Digital Radio, La radio numerique, which will fill in the
Government Orders
blanks that you would normally have as you drive from your home to Ottawa when the sound fades and there is interference from American channels. We will have new technology to correct that.
We must not destroy that infrastructure. Without the money that the CBC needs, we will not have the required infrastructure to ensure that we will have the kinds of communication that we require across this land.
What else has the government done? It has tom down VIA Rail because of the deficit. Forget about the social costs and the hardship it causes the elderly, the sick and women who have to take their children from distant locations to Montreal but cannot travel on the buses because it is inconvenient and uncomfortable. It is the same hardship for the disabled and the handicapped who cannot afford air fare. They were forgotten while it dismantled the wonderful transportation net that we had set up. The government would rather forget about the social costs of removing vital links across this land; the deficit is the only thing that matters.
Bill C-69 continues to implement the cuts of the government's 1990 budget. As I mentioned, the CBC capital budget has been cut by $20 million. That would certainly affect radio transmission and, I suggest, cuts very important services to the north. Telefilm Canada was cut by $13 million, affecting our Canadian content for film and video. The Export Development Corporation which helps our companies compete around the world, which is supposed to be another goal of this government, was cut by $100 million. The Secretary of State was cut by $113 million, much of it to womens' support programs and aboriginal communication infrastructure. The Small Craft Harbours Program was cut by $29 million. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation funding for social and co-operative housing was cut by $165 million in the face of acute shortages in low-cost housing and a growing homeless population in many of our major cities.
The trickery being played here is obvious. The government makes these cuts while its rhetoric speaks of strong undying support for the varied programs it is cutting. Who are those members they trying to fool? The smoke and mirrors are easy to see through. Canadians have certainly not been duped with these hollow words.

June 11, 1990
Government Orders
After six years, Canadians know all too well how the game is being played on that side of the House: a government claiming support for programs while cutting them; and a government claiming it has performed miracles of fiscal management, when it has doubled the national debt and taken Canadian taxpayers to the cleaners. There have been 31 tax increases, with the thirty-second in the wings.
I am not saying that we must ignore the deficit, not at all. Nor do I believe any of my colleagues believe that-


An Hon. Member:: Sure, they do.


Sheila Finestone: -but we must apply to any deficit action the traditional Canadian approach of balance between the economic and social goals.
I certainly would not use the hon. member's very narrow point of perspective. I remember him on one of my standing committees and it was not a pleasure.
In other words, we must examine the social cost of any given action on the deficit. If we give up on that principle, we give up on what has been one of the fundamental values of Canada. I would argue we would be vastly impaired, not fairly meeting all of our citizens' basic needs. It would pander to the well-to-do and be quite insensitive to the growing needs of the working poor.
With the budget. Bill C-69, and all the other blind cuts that have occurred, the government has failed on this question of social responsibility. I would suggest to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, if he is truly concerned, that his voice has been silenced. He has failed to have an impact on the thinking of his cabinet colleagues. He has failed to have an impact on the budget of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and he has succeeded only in loosening the web of the Canadian social fabric.
What a strange irony as we open the newspapers today and we see that the Minister of Finance is busy asking workers and unions to limit their wage increase demands. At the same time, the government treats its own public servants quite differently. I would suggest, again, that that fancy rhetoric does not really reflect reality. It is really quite a scandal, what we learned today.
We learned that, while telling workers to cut their wage demands, the Tory government has been quietly topping up the salaries of high level federal executives with bonuses of up to 25 per cent. I told the Minister of Transport that he should change jobs. At the 25 per cent
limit, the estimate is that he would get a bonus of almost $40,000 as the head of VIA Rail and $100,000 as the head of Petro-Can.
I recall in Question Period today the President of the Treasury Board spoke in the most unctuous tones, using holier-than-thou terms. He ended by saying: "Eve told you that the government bosses received exactly the same pay increases as the workers of the country. As unionized public servants, they got a 4.2 per cent increase." He just forgot about the bonuses. It seems to me it just banks all these people bank who certainly got more than 4.2 per cent. There has been a lack of full exposure of this issue.
The salary range for the Bank of Canada Governor, John Crow, has risen by 35 per cent since 1987. We had to get information, not through Canada's access to information legislation, but through the American access to information system. We found out that the five top executives at CN received pay raises averaging 18.7 per cent last year, the same year that CN's profits plunged. Then, two days ago, my colleague, the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon, came into the House and asked the Minister of Labour what he plans to do for the 1,900 CN workers who just lost their jobs-

I ask you, is that really fair? Personally, I find it really unacceptable.

The cuts we have had to the Canada Assistance Plan, in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, will increase the strain on the already insufficient resources available, not only for the general welfare services but also for services for the disabled, for child care, for foster homes-the whole range of social services. This is the first time in the 24-year history of the Canada Assistance Plan that the federal government has placed a limit on its contributions. Created in 1966, this legislation provides the basis for social assistance in the country.
By cutting CAP, the federal government is hurting the poorest of the poor. Under CAP, the federal and provincial governments share equally in the cost of welfare payments and basic necessities such as food, shelter, clothing, utilities, and other household supplies. It also provides important services such as dental care for the poor, essential services for disabled persons, foster
June 11, 1990

homes for abused children, shelters for abused wives, and child care for low income families.
The data for 1987 shows that 49 per cent of Canada's poor families and 54 per cent of Canada's poor individuals live in these three provinces. The cuts that the federal government has imposed are unilateral, defying at least the spirit, if not the wording, of the CAP agreement with the provinces. The contesting provinces believe that under the CAP agreement, CAP can only be modified after a year's notice and with provincial consent. This is the government that is building a great sense of national reconciliation and goodwill. I will not comment further right now on that issue.
I would suggest to you that neither of these provisions have been met. Madam Speaker, don't look so upset. The truth is the truth, even if it hurts and makes you unhappy.


Mr. Nicholson:: You didn't mention the 5 per cent increase the Ontario government was implementing.


Sheila Finestone: Then what is the freeze that you are putting into place? You forget to take account of that.
The problem with the hon. members opposite is that they are a bunch of penguins. They do not read the documents. All they do is flap their wings and their lips.
Through capping the Canada Assistance Plan, the government claims it will save $151 million over two years. That is what it has done through capping. That is its bottom line. What are the costs? The Canada Council on Social Development has stated:
Poor children will suffer when Ihe federal contribution to the
Canada Assistance Plan is capped for Alberta, B.C. and Ontario.
The plan provides direct payments to poor people with no other
income, 40 per cent of whom are children and half of whom live in
the three provinces that are affected.
The poor in these three provinces are just as poor as those in other provinces and this is a very odd way for the government to come to the aid of those in need.
That is the human toll I am talking about, the cost in human and social terms of this deficit cutting action. Yes, perhaps the provinces will fill in the gap left by the federal government where they have been able to maintain their resolve and their commitment to the caring society. I say, thank goodness someone will,
Government Orders
because it is surely not going to be those on the benches across the way who will act in the interest of our poor, especially our children.
Something is dreadfully wrong in the orientation and planning for our country. Something is wrong with the vision of the government.
While the Minister of Finance is very pleased with his budget, all he has done is transfer the burden of tax to the provinces and the municipalities. By the government's shirking of its duties to make its budget look better, other hands are going into the taxpayers' pockets to meet important needs in terms of assistance, health, re-education, and training.
Let us look at the Equalization Payment Fund and education cuts. What is the impact of the minister's cuts? What is the implication of these freezes, cuts, or whatever you want to call them? It is less money going into the province to support the importance of education and the future of our children.
Will the provinces faced with less than their expected federal contributions have any choice with provincial transfers being strained? Have they any choice but to give further limited resources to the universities? Will they have any choice but to increase tuition or to put capital projects or new equipment purchases on hold? Who suffers then? The student suffers because either tuition increases have closed the door to college or to university, or the institution cannot afford all the resources to prepare him or her for the fierce competition of life and career.
This only serves as a stumbling block in maximizing the potential of our young people who are our human capital of tomorrow. These are the kinds of things the government must be able to see and duly consider-the full consequences of its action and not just the effect on the balance sheet. Unfortunately, Canadians do not have a government with that kind of balanced vision. We do have a government that knows how to package pretty packages, empty boxes, but it does not remember its own strongly held view.
Unfortunately I have misplaced one of the minister's famous quotes, but it indicates that he does not feel we should be cutting on the backs of the hospitals, health care, or the universities when we look at how to plan. He

June 11, 1990
Government Orders
said this in 1982 but I guess when one becomes minister there is another reality that sets in.
These are not the first cuts to education transfers by the government. Cumulatively, since 1986, it has cut $31.1 billion from all EPF programs-$22.2 billion from health care and $8.9 billion from post-secondary education. Across the way, members may not call them a cut nor a freeze but any name they want. It is $31.1 billion: $22.2 billion plus $8.9 billion. Most people do not even know how many zeroes that is. They just know that it is a heck of a lot of money being cut from the needed services for their children and for their future.
This is being done at a time when inflation is running above 5 per cent, heating costs are up, library costs have risen, new equipment is sorely needed, and laboratory costs are on the increase. Again, the government has made the cuts in education transfers to the provinces just when what is really needed are greater resources for education, better facilities, and more professors to make our young people capable of competing in the 21st century.
In an address to a public policy conference for journalists convened by the C. D. Howe Institute in April, 1989, George Pederson, the president of the University of Western Ontario, issued a very severe warning saying that the university system in Canada is in trouble, serious trouble.
I am going to wrap up by saying that it is certain that we have pockets of excellence in our various educational institutions, but there is no single university in Canada that can compete with the best in the United States, Britain, Western Europe, not to mention Japan. If we want to be on a fair and equal footing to compete in the international world of tomorrow, we had better make sure there is a reinstatement of quality in our universities. That is what Pederson maintained and he is quoted in an article in The London Free Press of April 28, 1990.
When one cuts into the health care of the people and the basic promises for the infrastructure of our health services, and when the world looks our medicare system and says that this is an incredible system, this population is no longer prepared to accept the kinds of cuts the government has put in. We find that we are closing beds
and have long waiting lists in our hospitals and overcrowded emergency wards-all things which are taking place as we cut $22.2 billion from the EPF. With respect to our health services, the cutbacks announced are absolutely amazing and 70 per cent of that $31.1 billion comes from that health care side.
Madam Speaker, I would have liked to continue. Another time I will have something else to say.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception-Fisheries; the hon. member for Dartmouth-Regional development; and the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley-Forestry.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's speech this afternoon. She made three very interesting points. She criticized the government for cutting expenditures; she criticized the government for raising taxes; and she criticized the government for not handling the deficit problems.
There is a certain inconsistency in that type of speech. There are two areas where the federal government can save income or gain income. One is through taxes and the other is through cutting expenditures. If we do have a deficit problem the hon. member will have to admit to the House-at least I hope she would admit to the House-that one, the other or both is a way to try to get the deficit situation under control. That is what the Minister of Finance has done in a very responsible manner.
She talked about the deficit of this country. When we took office, it was $200 billion, it is now some $350 billion, 80 per cent of which is just compound interest on the $200 billion deficit that was left to us.


Sheila Finestone: Why don't you do something about it?


John Horton McDermid: That is exactly what we are doing. The hon. member can stand up and criticize all she wants. That is very easy. The minute the Liberal Party has something concrete to put on the table to solve the
June 11, 1990

deficit problem, we will be very pleased to listen to it, and if it makes sense we will take action.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, this government has been in place for over six years, six of the best earning years in the history of Canada, and all it has managed to do is double the national debt and not decrease the deficit. Go and find out what you are supposed to do. They didn't elect me to do it. They elected you to do it. Why don't you take your responsibilities seriously. And by the way, why don't you eat crow or fire Crow, but stand behind what you do?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member may want to speak through the Chair. It would be appreciated.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, I too have a question for the hon. member for Mount Royal. She mentioned during the course of her speech that members on the other side were not able to get their message through to the Minister of Finance. She made that point very well. She also made the point that the hon. member for Jonquiere, the hon. member for Niagara Falls, and the hon. member for St. John's East, and finally the Minister for Privatization did not get their message through to her either, and I hope they never do, because she did a very good job.
The Minister of Finance said in Toronto in August, 1984 that he would not increase taxes in Canada in order to cut the deficit. He has raised them 31 times and is coming up to 32 times. He also said he would not make a battleground out of post-secondary education, hospitalization and medicare in this country, but he has done that very thing in Bill C-69.
While we are talking about inconsistencies, I would like to put this question to the hon. member for Mount Royal. Do you think these are greater inconsistencies than the phoney arguments raised by the Minister for Privatization?


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I could not have said it better than my colleague, and I thank him for those remarks. I would just like to remind him about one thing the Prime Minister had to say. At the PC general meeting on August 25, 1989, he said: "This government will carry its fair share of the burden to ensure that all young Canadians receive a first-class education as they
Government Orders
confront a world-class challenge". Certainly, the Minister of Finance did not hear that. I would like to remind him of what the Prime Minister had to say and recall his own words for reconsideration so he might withdraw the bill. On March 24, 1982, he said: "Cuts to the EPF could have disastrous effects on the universities and on the colleges, on the hospital funding and on the operation of the hospitals. Let us not make hospitals, universities and colleges a battleground between the federal government and the provincial governments: Let us solve those problems not on the backs of hospitals and universities; let us solve those problems outside of that area".
We think the Minister of Finance has a very sad, clouded vision of how to govern this country, and perhaps should listen to the minister of health and social welfare who would have better advice to give.


Rob Nicholson: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has spoken very forcefully about salary increases. Has she had a chance to take up this matter with her colleagues in the Senate who voted themselves an increase? If she has, has it done any good?


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I must say that I was wondering whether or not my hon. colleague has taken up with his federal minister the 25 per cent increase that he has just given to all these big functionaries? Do you know how much money you have just finished spending? You ought to be ashamed of yourself. It is obscene what you have done.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Madam Speaker, I noted with interest some of the comments the hon. member for Mount Royal made on this particular bill. I note she went into the clawback of the old age pensions and alluded to the cutbacks to the Unemployment Insurance Commission, the CAP, welfare payments, the EPF cuts to hospitals and post-secondary education.
I have been in Parliament over the last year and a half, and as I look at this I see a thread of harmonization. Can the member see any tie-in with what this government seems to be doing with these cuts and the free trade agreement?

June 11, 1990
Government Orders


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I would have to ask for a clarification on the nature of the question that was asked.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member for Mount Royal a question, bearing in mind the comment in her speech that Canadian universities are not as high in excellence as those in other countries, such as the United States, England, and others.
First of all, I want to submit that while she may be basing her quote on a newspaper article, I do not think most Canadians or most international observers would agree with her. I would like her to indicate what universities in Canada she believes to be inferior to those international universities. I would think that the foreign students coming to Canada will claim that part of the reason they come here is because our universities stand in their excellence, par excellence, second to none. I ask her if she has any empirical evidence to support that unsubstantiated sentence.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I am not the research team. I have quoted extensively from some very important research. I would like to point out to the hon. member, that he is close to my era, perhaps a decade or so away. I would like to suggest that at the C. D. Howe Institute, which I think is rather a credible institute, the observation has been made that the quality of instruction available to university students today is not nearly as good as that provided to their parents who attended Ontario universities 30 years ago.
I would suggest the hon. member falls into that category. I would also suggest that one of the reasons foreign students come here is because our universities are much less expensive. It has nothing to do with the quality of the university.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The period for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am reluctant to start a speech in the circumstances because I am aware that at four o'clock we will probably be interrupted when the Prime Minister arrives. Perhaps in the meantime I could start. Having a captive audience of over half of the Cabinet is a particular treat for me as it is very rare, during debate, to see so many here and I am delighted.
I want to say that discussing Bill C-69, the act to restrain government expenditures, is a misguided effort on the part of the government. We hear constant complaints about how we never make suggestions on this side of the House. I can tell the ministers opposite, through you, Madam Speaker, that I have made many suggestions for measures to do with the economy, such as cutting the advertising budget on the goods and service tax, which would save millions and millions of dollars for the taxpayers of Canada every year, cutting the size of this Cabinet in half, which would reduce expenditures significantly and possibly increase the effectiveness. It could not reduce it.
I say that we could consider all these suggestions and yet, when I have made them, I have been blithely ignored. The Minister of Finance has not even come in and made a speech in response, agreed, or said that he would not agree to my suggestions. They have been politely and firmly ignored.
I am afraid that this attitude on the part of the government is regrettable, and particularly so when it is the educational facilities of Canada that are suffering as a result of the cuts that are proposed in Bill C-69.
My own community has in it two universities; one of which is not directly affected by these cuts since it is funded solely by the federal government, being the Royal Military College. The other university is directly affected, as indeed are all universities across this country.
I want to confine my remarks on Bill C-69 to the educational aspect of these cuts so the Minister of National Health and Welfare can relax.


Mr. Beatty:: I'm virtually comatose.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He says he is relaxed already. I suggest that if he and his colleagues had a proper interest in health care delivery in this country, they would not relax when they are trying to pass this particular bill through the House of Commons. He knows, as well as I do, that this bill will significantly reduce the ability of the provinces to fund health care in their jurisdictions as a result of the federal government trying to dump the problem to the provinces.
June 11, 1990

On March 14, 1989, the Canadian Association of University Teachers wrote to the Prime Minister to make him aware of their particular concerns regarding post-secondary funding. That association argued that the transfer of funds under the Established Programs Financing Act, "has a direct and profound impact on the quality of our universities and of our research effort". That is not me talking, it is not some other member of the opposition bleating, this is the Canadian Association of University Teachers expressing their concerns about these cuts. They ask the Prime Minister to show his support for post-secondary education by announcing, in the government's Speech from the Throne, a renewed commitment to education funding.
How did the Prime Minister respond to this request? What did he do to strengthen Canada's post-secondary institutions? In his April 1989 budget, the Minister of Finance reduced by 1 per cent the escalator provisions used to calculate the level of funding that each government receives through EPF. This was in keeping with his decision in 1986 to lower the escalator by 2 per cent.
Continuing this assault, the Prime Minister now plans, through this bill that we are now debating, to impose a two-year freeze on per capita EPF transfers to the provinces. He plans to remove the inflation protection from these transfers precisely when the new goods and services tax bill, which is now sitting in the other place will, on the finance department's own admission, cause a 1 per cent jump in inflation.
We in the opposition know that those projections are incorrect. It will be more than 1 per cent and yet that is what the Department of Finance is maintaining, you cut the transfers to the provinces while you increase the costs through your own taxation measures. That is unfair and that is what this government is doing by these bills.
In addition, the rate of growth of the transfers will be restricted to 3 percentage points below the rate of growth in the economy when the freeze is lifted after 1992. This will result in a further erosion and deterioration of the moneys available to provinces for education purposes. The cumulative results of this government's assault on EPF transfers has meant that from 1986 to 1995, provincial governments will have lost $8.9 billion in post-secondary education funding. Of this loss, approxi-
Govemment Orders
mately $2 billion, that is about a quarter of it, is attributable to Bill C-69 alone.
Back in 1984 when the Prime Minister's party was trying to get elected, it wrote to the Canadian Association of University Teachers in a newsletter that they were "committed to sustaining the current federal financial commitment according to the formula set out in the 1977 agreement. We believe that financing post-secondary education is an important priority for both levels of government". I note that that was before an election. How their tune changed after the election, after they duped the Canadian people into voting for them, they changed their tune and then began slashing and cutting all over the place. Talk about honesty in government, talk about the obligation to maintain your promises, this is a shocking record. Since 1984 the government's support of post-secondary education has become so weak that the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada has projected that, as a result of Bill C-69 and the February 1990 budget, federal cash transfers in support of post-secondaiy education could disappear before the year 2000 in Ontario and before the year 2010 in the rest of the provinces.
The government's record fails to match its rhetoric and its promises. Instead of being given the straight goods on this bill and its effects, we are given fudged figures that cloud the issue and make it look as though this somehow is a bonanza for the provinces. It is not. The Canadian people know it is not and the government, in truth, knows it is not, but simply will not reveal the facts.
While the government has initiated some worth-while programs in the education field-


Lloyd Axworthy: Name one.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: My hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre asks me to name one.
I must say I have not heard anyone over there suggest any because I do not think they know of them. But, in fairness, there has been an increase-and I will deliver a compliment-in the funding levels to the various research councils. On the other hand, the increase has been less in almost every case than the level of inflation. It is not much of an increase, but there has been some additional funding, and I am corrected every time I say that.

June 11, 1990
Routine Proceedings
The EPF cuts will reduce the effect of these few positive initiatives because there are several factors to be borne in mind in relation to university research. Perhaps hon. members opposite would like to learn something about it. First, research work in the universities incurs expenses not covered by research grants. If a university receives a grant to conduct certain research, it has to hire staff and provide space and facilities of various kinds for the researcher to do the work.
The report of the task force on federal policies and programs for technology development prepared by the ministry of state for science and technology in July 1984 stated: "Because most federal funding covers only the incremental research costs such as supplies, technicians' salaries and equipment, it is estimated that each grant dollar a university receives from Ottawa via the research councils forces it to spend at least another dollar on facilities and other overheads". There has been no increase in the funding for universities for overheads and increased costs of research facilities, none whatever. This is another item the government leaves off the plate. It announces with great trumpet and fanfare that it will increase funding for universities, but it does not pay the costs. It gives you a little dollop and says: "Here you go, this is funded. All this money has been paid". The government will not pay the increased costs to universities that are obliged to make up out of the dollars that come from the province through EPF transfers, dollars that are not now coming at the same rate. They have dropped and Bill 069 is one of the principal instruments by which these moneys dropped.


Mr. Bouchard (Roberval):: It depends on the provinces.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. Minister for Science and Technology, who should know more about this than I do, says that it depends on the provinces. He should also know that the province of Ontario passes on the bulk of this money. I agree that perhaps the government of Premier Vander Zalm does not pass the money along to its universities, but that is a Social Credit government with close ties to the PC Party, and I am not surprised that it does not pass it on. Liberal governments are far less tight-fisted with the few federal dollars that they get from this minister.
Since it is the EPF transfers which pay for these other costs, it is obvious that cutting these transfers will mean that post-secondary institutions will not have the funds
they need to make effective use of the research and development grants that they are now receiving, both from this government and from the provincial governments.
Speaking at the University of Waterloo in 1987, the Prime Minister himself said these words: "I have been speaking and writing about the urgent and pressing necessity of increasing our national commitment to R and D, not only in the amounts we spend, but in the way we spend. We cannot be satisfied with what we have accomplished". He was certainly right there. Things have got worse at his behest since 1987. This government has cut what it accomplished before. How can he be satisfied today? He was not satisfied in 1987. The implication of his speech-and I note that this was before an election campaign in 1988-indicated that he was not satisfied and felt the situation should be improved. I notice that this improvement has not occurred. This bill makes the situation worse.
I urge the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology to plead with his colleague the Minister of Finance to withdraw this bill so that we can increase payments to the provinces, not cut, slash and reduce in the way in which the government proposed to do.


Mr. Speaker:: Before continuing, according to an order made with unanimous consent earlier today, I would say to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands that he will understand the interruption. The hon. member will have the floor after the proceedings.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of national pride that I rise to inform the House of the results of the recent First Ministers' conference.
Since I became leader of my party, I set out as one of my basic goals to bring Quebec back into the Canadian constitutional family. That goal is now within reach, and
June 11, 1990

if all goes well within the next few weeks that goal will become a permanent reality.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Once the three remaining legislatures pass the Meech Lake Accord, Quebec will formally rejoin our constitutional family and Canada will be able to face its future united and strong. We will then be able to address ourselves to some other constitutional issues. In particular, Senate reform. It is so important to so many Canadians in the east and in the west. We will be free to concentrate more of our time and attention on creating the requisite economic and social conditions for Canadians to prosper and for Canada to thrive.
There is, as we all know in this House, a new world to be won. Canada needs to turn the page, at last, on a long, and controversial and often debilitating period of our constitutional history so that we can move with firmness and confidence into the next century.

Mr. Speaker, I think that will soon be possible with the passage of the Meech Lake Accord as is. I have consistently said that Meech Lake must be passed by June 23 and that other constitutional concerns would be met subsequently. Anyone who carefully reads the document we signed will see that I kept my word and that my government kept its word to Quebec and Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I kept my word on the accord and, Mr. Speaker, I will also keep my word on the other matters on which we reached agreement last week.
It was taking a chance with Canada's future when, in 1982, it was decided to go ahead with constitutional amendments without the assent of the National Assembly of Quebec. Isolating Quebec once was once too many as we all recognized. I resolved that it should never happen again in this country. For Quebecers, it was a bitter outcome to the 1980 referendum because the whole 1980-82 constitutional round was undertaken pursuant to a solemn undertaking, given just six days before the referendum vote, by the then Prime Minister of Canada on behalf of all of us who were members of the "Non" committee. At the time, the Prime Minister said, and he spoke for all Canadians, and very eloquently, I may say, and I quote: "We're telling you in the other
Routine Proceedings
provinces that we won't accept that a "Non" be interpreted by you as an indication that everything is fine and can remain as it was before." Well, Mr. Speaker, and I say this without malice, there is no doubt things did change, but it was not the renewed federalism Quebecers thought they voted for when they voted yes or no to Canada on May 20, 1980.
On August 6,1984, at Sept-Iles, I made a commitment to pursue Quebec's signature on the Canadian constitution, provided we could establish ground rules to meet the minimal conditions of success. Some people believed the 1980 referendum closed the books. As a Quebecer, however, I had my doubts, I had serious personal doubts. I saw it on the North Shore and I saw it throughout Quebec, and I thought that the sense of estrangement in Quebec was too deep and too broad to take the risk, because the 1981-82 process and its results had raised some serious questions throughout Quebec about the value of its ongoing association with Canada. I felt this was very unfortunate, because as a Quebecer, I have always thought that Quebec had a future, a brillant and dynamic future, within the Canadian federation. I was therefore very disturbed by what I heard across the province.
However, mindful of the sensitivity of this issue, we did not reopen the file until there was a federalist Premier in place in Quebec. My government decided to proceed with the reform process then because we did not think there would ever be more favourable circumstances for doing so. The harrowing memory of the Referendum was still fresh in people's minds, but a federalist government was and is today in office in Quebec: the Liberal government headed by Robert Bourassa. A spirit of reconciliation prevailed in federal-provincial relations. I refer now, Mr. Speaker, to 1986 and the beginning of 1987.

It was also obvious that the sense of alienation was not exclusive to Quebec in any way. The people in the east, west and north were also not satisfied with the status quo. Certainly, they appeared not to be. Without Quebec at the table, however, the result of the 1981-82 constitutional reform was effectively blocked. I saw that firsthand, and I discussed it with some of my NDP and Liberal colleagues in this House. We all saw it firsthand in 1985 when as Prime Minister of Canada I chaired the

June 11, 1990
Routine Proceedings
First Ministers' Conference seeking a constitutional amendment for aboriginal groups. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we came within a whisker of success, but we eventually failed. I believe we would have succeeded, we would have avoided failure that day, had Quebec been participating fully in the Constitution, because the Government of Quebec had signalled clearly and publicly its support for the amendment.
Thus the first victims of 1981-82 were not Quebecers. They were our aboriginal peoples who should have received justice that day in 1985 and will now, with Quebec at the constitutional table, have an infinitely better chance at that justice they have been seeking so long.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: At the same time my colleagues and I recognize that attempts to resolve all constitutional problems at once had generally failed in the past.
On July 14, 1986 I therefore wrote to the premiers suggesting that "the only realistic way I believe to proceed is, first, to bring Quebec back into the fold and to undertake a more extensive revision of the Constitution at a later stage".
The premiers agreed and, at their conference in August of 1986, the premiers of Canada issued the Edmonton Declaration. By that declaration, under the chairmanship of Premier Getty, they "agreed that their top constitutional priority" was "to embark immediately upon a federal-provincial process, using Quebec's five proposals as a basis for discussion, to bring about Quebec's full and active participation in the Canadian federation". They also agreed that other matters would be dealt with in a subsequent round.
Over the fall of 1986 and the winter of 1987, Senator Lowell Murray and his officials began a long, difficult and time consuming series of consultations with their provincial colleagues and with all others in Canada interested in the process, for example with aboriginal groups, with women's groups, and with those advancing the cause of special interests.
In April of 1987,1 invited the premiers to Meech Lake to see, as I said in my Law Day Address on April 15,
1987, if we could reach an agreement or whether it was better "to close the books" on the entire question.
I wanted it clear before we got to Meech Lake that we were not engaging with parti pris but that we were going to take a hard look at it, examine it carefully in an objective atmosphere with all the best possibilities for success, but that if it did not work they would have to decide whether it was not better in those circumstances to cut it off once and for all.
I said then that to reach agreement would "require us to find an appropriate balance between the principle of the equality of all the provinces and the need to protect them and enhance the distinctiveness Quebec brings to Canada".
On April 30, 1987, as hon. members know, the first ministers met at Meech Lake and reached an agreement in principle. Over the next weeks, legal experts from all governments developed a constitutional test.
On June 2, 1987, first ministers met at the Langevin Block and agreed upon a legal document that incorporated improvements that met the concerns that had arisen in the interim. On June 3,1987, the premiers and I signed the Meech Lake Accord.
The accord itself resulted from an obvious process of give and take. On that morning of June 3, 1987, I genuinely doubt, Mr. Speaker, if it had occurred to any of us that we would still be talking about this three years later. But then three governments changed and commitments that had been given were re-opened.
It is against this background that we have tried to create a new consensus, one that respected the Meech Lake framework while responding to concerns that have been raised in many cases quite unexpectedly over the subsequent or intervening three years. As members know, we have spared no effort to bring the dissenting provinces into the Meech consensus, while responding to their sincere concerns and to those of many Canadians that have arisen from both the process and the substance at Meech Lake.
The House established a special committee under the chairmanship of the member for Sherbrooke, the hon. Jean Charest, to conduct hearings on the New Brunswick proposal.
The Charest committee reported on May 17.1 want to take this opportunity to thank all members from all parties of the Charest committee who worked so hard
June 11, 1990

and who gave such devotion to Canada, all members from all parties. This was a remarkable contribution, and in underlining the tremendous work-

-done, not just for Canada but for Quebec, by the Hon. Jean Charest, I also wish to express my unqualified appreciation for all members of all parties in this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I wish to thank in particular the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Gray, and the Leader of the New Democratic Party, Ms. McLaughlin, for the sensitivity of their approach and for support they and members of their parties, some of whom I see on the front benches and elsewhere in this House, accorded the government on this issue of crucial national importance.
I wish to offer special thanks to Mr. Turner and Mr. Broadbent for the leadership they have provided on this issue from the very beginning. Canadians will remember that Mr. Turner never wavered from his deeply held conviction that the accord was right for Canada and that Canadian unity took priority over political considerations. Mr. Broadbent likewise stood firm in defence of the accord and deployed his considerable energy and persuasiveness on behalf of its adoption.
In retrospect, it is very clear to me that the success we achieved last weekend would not have been possible without the leadership and the support in the very beginning of John Turner and Ed Broadbent.
I want to thank as well all of those Canadians who helped so much in our darkest hours to keep the struggle for Meech Lake alive. Editorialists, constitutional experts, scholars, students, working mothers, and mill workers all contributed highly to our initiative.
In this past week in Ottawa the problems were complex and the disagreements were very, very difficult to narrow, but the premiers and I persevered for seven long days-it seemed like years-and bridged the differences and worked out an agreement. None of them had an illusions about the stakes involved.
Routine Proceedings
Premiers Peterson, Bourassa, Buchanan, Vander Zalm, Ghiz, Devine, and Getty remained true to their vision of Canada and despite enormous political pressures stood by their original endorsement of the Meech Lake Accord.
Premier McKenna will be tabling the Meech Lake Accord and two companion documents in his legislature this week. Premier Filmon will be initiating the ratification process by convening public hearings shortly. Premier Wells phoned me earlier today to indicate that he will be submitting the accord for a free vote in the Newfoundland House of Assembly.
According to the terms of the agreement reached in Ottawa, Saturday, he will use every possible effort to achieve a decision prior to June 23, 1990. Once the accord is adopted, the Governor General will be advised to proclaim the amendment and the Meech Lake Accord will at last be entrenched in the Constitution and Quebecers can feel truly part of this great Canada.
Since the accord was signed three years ago, concerns have been raised by women, native people, northern Canadians, and minority language groups. The premiers and I heard these concerns. We have committed ourselves to seek approval as soon as possible by Parliament and the provincial legislatures of constitutional amendments directed to them.
We have agreed to make it explicit that the equality of the sexes is fully protected under the Constitution of Canada. We have also agreed that First Ministers' Conferences on aboriginal constitutional matters be held every three years, and that representatives of Canada's aboriginal peoples and territorial governments participate in the conferences at the invitation of the Prime Minister of Canada.
With respect to the territories, we all agreed that they be empowered, like the provinces, to submit names for consideration when vacancies occur in the Senate of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada. It was also agreed that representatives of the territorial governments participate at annual constitutional and economic conferences in discussions of issues that, in the judgment of the Prime Minister of Canada, directly affect them.
We agreed to address the options for provincehood for Yukon and the Northwest Territories in future constitutional discussions. Agreement was also reached on

June 11, 1990
Routine Proceedings
adding issues of interest to English and French speaking linguistic minorities to the agenda of constitutional conferences. It is most important that it never be forgotten that the protection of linguistic minorities remains a fundamental obligation of the Parliament and the people of Canada.
It was agreed that the equality of the two linguistic communities of New Brunswick be reflected in the Constitution.
We have further agreed to accelerate the process of Senate reform. After proclamation of the Meech Lake Accord, a commission will be established comprising federal, provincial and territorial government representatives to conduct hearings and to report to Parliament and provincial legislatures prior to the First Ministers' Conference on Senate Reform to be held in British Columbia by the end of this year.
The commission will make proposals to give effect to the following objectives. The first is that the Senate should be elected. Second, it should provide for more equitable representation of the less populous provinces and the territories. The third is that the Senate should have effective powers to ensure the interests of residents of the less populous provinces and territories figure more prominently in national decision making, reflect Canadian duality, and strengthen the Government of Canada's capacity to govern on behalf of all citizens, while preserving the principle of the responsibility of the government to the House of Commons. I have undertaken to report semi-annually to this House on progress toward Senate reform.
First ministers agreed to seek adoption of an amendment on comprehensive Senate reform by July 1, 1995. If, by then, comprehensive Senate reform has not been achieved, Senate representation will be amended automatically pursuant to a formula that we have all agreed upon.
Premier Peterson, on behalf of Ontario, proposed that his province relinquish six Senate seats. Premier Buchanan and Premier McKenna joined in this nation building gesture in giving up two Senate seats each. These 10 seats would be distributed to the four western provinces and to Newfoundland and Labrador, bringing their representation in the Senate to eight senators each, the
same number as Nova Scotia and New Brunswick would then have once the modifications are in full play.
This provides for some rebalancing of Senate representation in favour of the less populous provinces in case Senate reform is not achieved by the target date, and notwithstanding the tremendous pressures that we have placed upon ourselves, on the institutions, and on members of this House to pursue very actively the objectives of legitimate and thoughtful Senate reform.
With respect to a statement of constitutional recognitions, we took note of the repeated unsuccessful attempts over the last 20 years to draft a text acceptable to all concerned. We agreed, as part of our future constitutional agenda, to refer drafts submitted by the Government of Canada and by the Governments of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and British Columbia to an all-party committee of the House of Commons for public hearings starting July 16.
A report on the substance and the appropriate placement of the clause in the Constitution will be prepared for the consideration of first ministers at their constitutional conference later this year.
This, Mr. Speaker, in brief is a general outline of the main elements of the agreement.
With respect to the relationship of the distinct society clause in the Meech Lake Accord with the Charter of Rights, the concerns of Canadians were heard by the First Ministers and were considered with great care. The advice of eminent counsel was solicited. Based on that advice, First Ministers concluded that no amendment was required. We sought that advice to reassure all Canadians of our commitment to the Charter. For that reason, the opinion of counsel was appended to the communique.
In re-integrating into the constitutional family, Quebecers are saying yes to the statement of values contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In its April 3, 1989, Speech from the Throne, the Government of Canada committed itself to strengthening the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in future constitutional negotiations. Accordingly, we welcome the commitment of all First Ministers to a continuing review of the Constitution and the Charter as part of the process of annual First Ministers' Conferences on the Constitution.
June 11, 1990

With respect to the amending process that we followed this past week, Canadians should know that by and large it is the same process that was followed in 1987, in 1982 and, indeed, with some variations all the way back to Charlottetown in 1865. We did not invent the process of the last few weeks or the last few years. We very clearly inherited a process. This process has proven to be increasingly unsatisfactory in several respects and must be changed.
There should, first and foremost, be ample opportunity for Canadians to participate in the process. I propose today that we change the rules of this House so that once this chapter in our constitutional evolution is over public hearings will in future become mandatory in advance of all constitutional amendments so that the people of Canada will truly be heard.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Another aspect of the process that must be changed is that set out by Article 39(2) of the 1982 Constitution. That is the clause that mandated the three-year ratification period. In retrospect, it is obvious that that length of time makes our reaching agreement more difficult rather than facilitates it. Even if you are Harry Houdini, you could not get it done, and that must be changed.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: With respect to the spending power, I wish to state unequivocally that neither the Meech Lake Accord nor the agreement reached here last week diminishes the federal government's commitments on regional disparities and equalization-including programs to pursue the commitments set out in Section 36(1) of the Constitution Act of 1982.

Mr. Speaker, we should soon be able to turn the page on this chapter of constitutional reform but we must not forget some of the lessons we learned from it. It is clear that there are serious misunderstandings in this country that we cannot afford to ignore. And so I appeal to all Canadians to join us in healing the damage in the months ahead. We need to rebuild a sense of community and, especially, to promote more contact amongst Canadians right across this country. On one level, we need to recapture the sense of tolerance and common interest
Routine Proceedings
and common purpose that lies at the root of our success as a nation. At another level, we need to reaffirm the advantages we enjoy as a bilingual, multicultural country in a shrinking world.
My government will take a series of national policy initiatives that will both help to refurbish national unity and respond to the economic and social needs of all Canadians. At a time when it is becoming increasingly important to have a knowledge and an understanding of foreign cultures and international affairs, Canada is in a unique position to promote its own interests while helping developing countries. While western Europe is merging into a new, supra-national entity, eastern Europe is undergoing rapid change, Asia is experiencing spectacular growth, democracy is taking root in Latin America and economic development in Africa is at a standstill, Canada has interests to promote and a remarkable contribution to make.
Blest with one of the strongest economies in the world, Canada is part of a handful of countries that have a real and decisive impact on the international scene. I have said before, in other circumstances-

We do not want to make Canada a superpower; we just want to make Canada a super country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: However, Mr. Speaker, all this would be impossible if we were not a united country.
As a Quebecer myself, I appeal to all Quebecers to join in the healing process. With the passage of the Meech Lake Accord, Quebec will achieve our essential objective: security for its cultural and linguistic distinctiveness. Quebec finally returns to the Canadian family by the front door. It was my dearest dream, because I could not conceive of Canada in all its splendour without Quebec. Today, Quebecers and all Canadians continue together again on the path to a brillant future.

Let us co-operate to reinforce the ties that bind this great country together.

June 11, 1990
Routine Proceedings
Over the past several months, Canadians have said with one voice that they want to remain together in one Canada united and strong from St. John's to Victoria to the Arctic Islands. We have our differences in this country, even from time to time as we have them in this House.
But the history of Canada is one of perseverance and co-operation and tolerance. It is a history of aboriginal peoples, two major language groups and the multicultural mosaic, all seeking to respect each other's differences and each other's convictions.
I always felt that the greatest attribute of Canadian citizenship was the tolerance that it brought to each and every one of us, tolerance for minority groups, respect for others' religions, respect for others' values however different from our own, respect for the values that are brought to this country, to our shores by immigrants from all over the world. Canada began that way, and we have been enriched decade after decade. If we maintain that kind of vision, that kind of openness and that kind of spirit Canada will always remain a land of tolerance and opportunity. That is the commitment I am sure that exists on behalf of all members of all parties of this House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Because from our pluralism comes a tolerant society, a society that is ready to look out on the world again, rather than in onto itself, unfailingly.
The challenge of nation-building did not end with the BNA Act in 1867. It did not end with patriation and the Charter in 1982. It did not end with the Meech Lake Accord. Nation-building is much more than writing a constitution. It continues every day in this House and in your house-in the cities, towns, villages and farms across this country. It is an act of the heart. May it ever be so.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, like most Canadians, my colleagues and I closely followed the efforts of the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers in recent days to seek a resolution to the present constitutional impasse. We believe that the final communique signed by the provincial premiers and the Prime Minister this past weekend can
provide the basis for the successful resolution of that constitutional impasse.

We understand the importance of the 1987 constitutional amendment, the purpose of which was to make Quebec a full member of the constitutional family. With Quebec back in, we can fully discuss all the constitutional changes being called for by groups and regions throughout our country.

We regret, however, that the Prime Minister waited so long to call a meeting of First Ministers. Canadians, generally, will recall that we on this side of the House have been calling for a First Ministers Conference for some months.
We believed that only when the provincial premiers and the Prime Minister were sitting and talking together at the same table would the dynamic arise that could lead to a breakthrough. We believe that the Prime Minister's delay contributed to the crisis atmosphere that pervaded the recent discussions among the premiers and himself.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: This unfortunate crisis atmosphere has led to a situation whereby there is very little time for the provinces who have not yet approved the 1987 constitutional amendment to do so by June 23.
Another result of the Prime Minister's approach has been that the discussions have not been as open as they might have been. Therefore, the public feels that they have been excluded from the process. We share the concern of Canadians about the process that took place last week and about its lack of openness. Canadians feel, and rightly so, that they have been excluded from a process that affects their future and the future of their country.
We were encouraged, therefore, that the Prime Minister and the provincial premiers have identified the need to review the procedure for amending the Constitution.
We agree with Canadians that never again should we undergo this kind of stressful process. We believe that open public discussion and debate are essential to constitutional change.
June 11, 1990

Furthermore, we believe that, had the Prime Minister himself shown more leadership and begun to seek a resolution of the constitutional impasse sooner, rather than waiting for the proposals of Premier McKenna, we might well have resolved this matter some time ago. After all, constitutional negotiations are not labour negotiations.
Also, the Prime Minister spoke of taking steps to cure and to heal the divisions and damage that have arisen in our country in recent months. Canadians will recognize and remember what we consider to be the responsibility of the Prime Minister, the responsibility he must bear for the development of the unfortunate situation he now calls upon all of us to help cure.
[Translation\


Some Hon. Members:: Elear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I hope that the New Brunswick, Manitoba and Newfoundland legislatures will accept this agreement and thereby will approve the 1987 constitutional amendment before June 23.

In his televised address to the nation on March 22, 1990, in response to the proposals of the Premier of New Brunswick, the Prime Minister said: "I know" that the accord "is not perfect." That is what he said. In fact, in 1987, we submitted a number of amendments which we believe would have strengthened and enriched the accord. We believe, if the Prime Minister had listened us to us seriously three years ago, that we might not have ended up in the current impasse.
The process of nation building in Canada is never easy. It is never complete. It is an ongoing challenge which faces every government and every individual elected to a position of trust in the country.

Mr. Speaker, we have succeeded in building a stronger, more united Canada by listening to the Canadian people and trying to meet their needs. We will reach consensus through dialogue and discussion. But to do so, Canadians across the land must become active participants.
Routine Proceedings

This country, in order to exist, needs all its people and all its regions. We need each other to build the kind of country we want for ourselves and our children. We need the people of Quebec, just as we need the people of Atlantic Canada, Ontario, the west and the north.
Everyone in this country must realize, yet again, that Canada is greater than the sum of its parts. Canada is worth preserving and must be preserved. If the country stays together, anything and everything is possible by way of constructive change and improvement in our Constitution and the way we live together.
We are all aware, for example, of the constitutional concerns of women, aboriginal people, minority language groups, multicultural groups, and the north, as well as of those calling for a reformed Senate. If Canada does not remain united, everything we have been discussing by way of reform of our institutions and the enhancement of our identity as Canadians will be meaningless and irrelevant.
The pressures that we saw last week at the conference centre in Ottawa have been transferred from the premiers and the Prime Minister to the members of the legislatures of Newfoundland, New Brunswick, and Manitoba. The members of those legislatures now have the burden and the responsibility for the future of the 1987 accord and what it could mean for the future of our country. I am sure they take these responsibilities veiy seriously.
I was very impressed by the words of Clyde Wells, the Premier of Newfoundland, to his legislature, the House of Assembly of Newfoundland, this morning. He said: "I am confident that the members of this honourable House, and indeed all Newfoundlanders and Labrado-rans, will express their views on the basis of their own sincere convictions and with the future of Canada foremost in their minds and hearts."
These are wise words, words of sincerity and conviction. Let these words serve as inspiration for all of us here in the House and for all Canadians. Let us always put the future of Canada foremost in our minds and our hearts.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

June 11, 1990
Routine Proceedings


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, as I rise to respond to the Prime Minister's statement today and as we watched the events of the last week and saw the kind of pressures and stress that the First Ministers and the Prime Minister underwent-and all of those who were not a part of that process underwent-certainly, I am not here to criticize those people who were involved, but to say constructively that we have to be honest and say that the process has not been a great reconciliation. It has been a possible accommodation.
I appreciate the Prime Minister's comments on process and I, too, would like to address that as well. As I begin, I want to state clearly that the New Democratic Party sees constitutional negotiation from the first principle that we must work to strive for the unity of the country.
As a party, we have consistently supported the five principles put forward by Quebec, including the distinct society. We also accept that the current round of constitutional negotiations were primarily to bring Quebec into the Constitution.

We heard many passionate speeches last week. Unfortunately, the constitutional process rarely gives concrete expression to the deep love these many participants showed for our country.

As I have watched the constitutional process unfold over the past few years, I have come to the conclusion that too often we fail to come to terms with our identity as a nation. We fail to take that unique identity and turn it into a constitution that will guide us over the next few years, the next decade, and beyond. After this week, what we and all Canadians have seen is that we have to rethink that process of doing that. The process of executive federalism that we saw in action this week has been shown in some ways to be a flawed process. We must re-examine that.

Before embarking on a difficult and divisive constitutional process, we did not mange to achieve a national consensus on the identity of Canada.

People look at Canada and define it by our identity as a vast northern country, with the Yukon and the Northwest Territories; the existence of two separate groups in the country, identified by the distinctiveness of Quebec, its language and its culture; the existence of aboriginal people as a vital part of our society as the first nations of the country; and, the emerging nature of our multicultural and our multi-racial society.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I deeply believe that our national identity, as defined by the characteristics I just mentioned, must be the basis of our Constitution. Even if we accept that this was the Quebec round of negotiations, and we do, some clauses of the Meech Lake Accord do not take into account the aspirations of other people and groups, in particular the North, native people, women and ethnic groups.
There has been talk of closing the circle of Confederation. I strongly hope that the signature of Quebec allowing Quebec to be a full participant in the Constitution that we saw on Saturday will begin that process, but the circle of Confederation will not be closed until the aboriginal people, northerners, women, and all Canadians become participants in the constitutional process.
The Prime Minister spoke to a commitment to opening up that process. I remind the Prime Minister that in this document it is the Prime Minister who has the ability to say when the territories and aboriginal people shall be present at the table. I will urge the Prime Minister-and I will continue to raise this issue with him-that aboriginal people and the territories be full participants in First Ministers' Conferences.
Particularly, Mr. Speaker, I want to mention that I hope when the first ministers meet in 1990 on the Canada clause aboriginal people are there when their rights are being discussed.
About a month ago the Charest report was released. It seems as quickly as that report was put together as a result of public hearings-it was in a short time frame- it heard about 160 witnesses. It was also the result of the hearing of some 800 briefs and presentations. The report was signed and endorsed by all parties. The Charest committee had a process and a result that we New Democrats could endorse.
June 11, 1990

Government Orders
However, it seems that in this process we had two parallel activities going on: the Charest report on one hand and the events of last week that we must say bore little or no relationship to each other.

The recommendations of the Charest Report are very similar to those the New Democratic Party made in 1987. Its recommendations are almost identical to a resolution the NDP adopted last December in Winnipeg.

The NDP has fought consistently for improvements to Meech Lake, recognizing and accepting the five important principles of Quebec. The agreement signed on Saturday that we are talking about today contains some of those improvements but not all. The victory has been at least getting the concerns on the table and in having the discussions take place.
I want to remind all members of this House that the issues of the aboriginal people, women, multi-racial and multi-heritage communities did not get on the table just because of us. They got on the table because those groups stood up and demanded to be heard. Now we as politicians must listen to those voices and ensure that they are incorporated in future constitutional talks.
In the strongest possible terms I want to say that as much as we appreciated that those issues were on the table for discussion and appear in this communique, my party and I cannot endorse the process as it took place last week.
What we witnessed was a nation literally with its faces pressed against the glass of the TV to try to get some bit of information not just about the future of the Constitution but about the future of the country. We saw women and aboriginal people marching outside the Conference Centre waiting as 11 people decided their fate, but they were not included.
We saw the elected Premier of Yukon and the elected Government Leader of the Northwest Territories on the outside of those negotiations and not included. We did not see openness. We did not see openness, we did not see consultation, and we did not see a public process.

I was saddened and discourged by the attempt I saw last week to reject the process and the accord. I do not reject the accord; it is the process I reject.
I do not reject the accord because the unity of this country has become the key concern. We must go beyond constitutional discussions and deal with other issues.
In conclusion, while I feel sad and discouraged, I say yes to the imperfect agreement reached last week. I cannot accept the events that took place last week.

I appreciate the Prime Minister's comment about mandatory public consultation, but we must also listen to those consultations and include their results in the final resolution. All of us must work, as politicians and as Canadians, to bring this country together.
The discussions on the future of our country have not ended. Let us strive as a united country to include all Canadians from sea to sea to sea in these discussions.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, with the permission of all hon. members of the House and pursuant to their remarks and mine, I would like to table the document called The First Ministers' Meeting on the Constitution: Final Communique, June 9, 1990.

With a French version, of course, to match the English, "The First Ministers' Meeting on the Constitution: Final Communique, June 9, 1990."



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-69, an act to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures be read a third time and passed.
[Stage Direction]
June 11, 1990
Government Orders
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, before I was interrupted by that tumultuous round of applause, I was speaking about the cuts in transfer payments to the provinces as contemplated in Bill C-69. I am sony that the Minister of Transport is otherwise occupied.
As I was indicating, the cutting of these EPF transfers will hurt universities and colleges in many other ways. I would like to list some of them. First, the lack of funds will mean that new buildings will not be built, causing further overcrowding of both students and faculty. This overcrowding will force universities to start restricting employment levels, thereby reducing accessibility to higher education in Canada.
The lack of funds will mean that laboratories will not be updated and modernized and that library budgets will be too meagre to meet demands placed on libraries by students and faculty. Schools will not have the funds to hire new faculty. Thus the student-teacher ratio, which has increased dramatically over the last few years, will continue to increase.
For example, while the number of full-time university and college students in Canada increased by 31 per cent from 1977 to 1988, the number of full-time professors has increased by only 10.5 per cent. While everyone realizes that there has been more part-time faculty, the fact is that more full-time faculty has not been retained in the numbers that are commensurate with the increase in enrolment.
Despite the increase in enrolment, this government is slashing EPF transfers to the provinces, thereby debilitating the province's ability to pay the money to these universities and colleges. In fact, according to the estimates of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada, about one-fifth of all federal program spending reductions over the next five years, as announced in the February 20 budget, will fall on transfers that are in support of post-secondary education.
Of course, with this government we can expect more cuts. The figure may be inaccurate because maybe in next year's budget we will have even more. At the moment, that is the way it looks from the figures that the Minister of Finance presented, as analysed by the Association of Universities and Colleges.
In addition to those policies, this government is pursuing the goods and services tax. This bill is one that the goods and services tax will affect in that, in addition to cutting the payment to the provinces as I previously indicated, the beneficiaries of those payments will now be paying out additional funds in the form of the goods and services tax. For some of those reasons the government of Alberta has taken a firm stand against this tax. It has recently come to my attention that the it has published the book Protecting Alberta's Future, Why We Oppose the Federal Goods and Services Tax.
The book is a government publication and I urge you to read it. It is published under the name of the Hon. Don Getty, Premier of the province of Alberta, and the Hon. Dick Johnston, the Treasurer of that province. It talks about the evils of the goods and services tax, evils we have been preaching about in this House. Unfortunately our pleas have fallen on deaf ears with respect to this matter and in terms of the government listening to us.
Here we have a case where the premier of one of the provinces has gone to the length of publishing a pamphlet outlining his difficulties with this tax. The disappointing thing is that the members from Alberta in this House have not been able to echo their premier's views on the goods and services tax. We have not heard about this publication from those members. Why have they not been criticizing this tax the way we have been when their own premier says that the tax is no good.
The only two members I have heard suggest that the goods and services tax is bad and ought not to proceed are now sitting on this side of the House as independents, the hon. member for Calgary Northeast and the hon. member for Calgary Southeast. And I understand the only reason they are sitting there is because they got the heave ho from the Conservative caucus. I see the whip is here, and I am surprised he would have countenanced this particular injustice to those members who, after all, were seeking to represent the interests of their premier in his opposition to this tax as outlined in this book.
I am not going to quote extensively from the book but I am sure that the arguments advanced in it are ones that support our objections to the goods and services tax. I am delighted to see we have an ally in the form of a Conservative premier in the province of Alberta. I am
June 11, 1990

very sorry that the Conservative members from Alberta do not feel free to speak their minds on this issue and criticize this tax.
I would enjoy hearing from the parliamentary secretary, or any of the other members from Alberta. I know that we have the views of two on the record.
Let me summarize again, going back to Bill C-69 and our problems with this bill.
We have a case where the government is cutting the transfers to the provinces for education. I have to ask the question, are these policies of cut, cut, cut, slash, slash, slash that the government has engaged in those of a government which has a clear vision of its country, a clear vision for the future for educational purposes of its young citizens? I suggest it is not.
Would a government with foresight and intelligence seeking to invest in the country's future pass legislation like Bill C-69? I suggest it would not. It would not even propose it.
I suggest that the government is not interested in securing our future through education. Instead, it is determined to cut the deficit at all costs without taking into consideration any of the long-term ramifications of its actions. I suggest it is cutting the deficit of our country in the wrong place.
How is this country supposed to compete in the world? We keep hearing from the Prime Minister that under the free trade deal Canada will move forward to greater competition in the world and will do extremely well and we will prosper under this deal.
How can we do that if we cut back on education payments, if we cut back on the amount of money that we invest in our young people. This particular government seems indifferent to that fact, notwithstanding its boasting about the free trade agreement.
What we are doing by these cuts is saying to our universities and colleges: "Cut back your enrolment, reduce the number of students, lower the quality of your education because we cannot afford to pay on the basis we have been paying in the past." That is the message the government is sending and I suggest it is the wrong message and it ought not to be sending it.
Government Orders
It is saying that for libraries and student facilities in universities, cut back. We cannot afford to have lavish expenditures on libraries; we cannot afford expenditures on classrooms and laboratories; we are going to have to cram more students into the space. You are going to have to cut back on enrolment; you are going to have to provide less faculty, fewer books, fewer quality books, and so on. That is the message the government sends. Cut, cut, cut.
I suggest it is doing it in the wrong area. The country cannot compete if it is restricted to its old ways. The government is cutting initiative with this bill. It is reducing the opportunity for expansion of educational horizons, educational opportunities and for education urgently required by students, younger persons starting out in life, and for more senior persons returning to school for educational purposes when we should be competing in a world-wide environment.
I suggest the policy adopted by the government is short-sighted and wrong and I urge the minister to withdraw this bill.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the comments of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. Obviously, his speech really was taken to heart because once he stood up the House cleared of many members. Having said that, I would like to comment on some of the things he mentioned.
The member is really concerned about the EPF transfer. He is a member from the province of Ontario, just as I am. In the province of Ontario this year the government was able to balance its budget, pay down some debt by about $400 million, set aside $300 million for a special fund for capital projects in education, increase spending by 7 per cent, increase funding for education by 7 per cent and increase health care funding by 12.8 per cent.
The federal government keeps its expenditure increases to 3 per cent. Does the member for Kingston and the Islands in the province of Ontario agree that Ontario should contribute and help deal with the financial problems of Canada? Does the hon. member agree that the deficit is a problem that should be addressed by the federal government? If so, does he agree that all sectors of the Canadian economy, all those who help spend taxpayers' dollars should contribute to help control the expenditure problem of the federal government? I would

June 11, 1990
Government Orders
be interested in hearing the member's comment on that situation.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, it is delightful to hear the hon. member for Ontario cite statistics showing the wonderful record of the Liberal government in office in Ontario. Like him, I am delighted that I live in a province which is blessed with a government that cares for the people, that believes in education, that believes in the importance of education for its people, and delivers on its promises.
The Ontario government of Premier Peterson promised in the last campaign that it would improve educational opportunities, that it would reduce the deficit in Ontario and bring the Ontario economy into a surplus position. It has delivered on its promises. What a comparison to the government that he supports in this House. It has a most disgraceful record of broken promises right down the line.
The hon. member says Ontario should help with the federal deficit. The responsibility for the federal deficit should be shouldered by the government here in this House, not by cutting transfers to the provinces. I think he may have missed the boat. He cited the example of the province that is best able to maintain itself in spite of these cuts. The purpose of the transfers is to equalize opportunity across Canada. If we cut transfer payments to provinces that cannot afford to maintain educational facilities without these moneys, we are going to make it extremely difficult for them to match the opportunities available in Ontario.
The purpose of transfer payments is to equalize opportunity across Canada. Cutting the transfer payments is not equalizing, it is destabilizing. It is unequalizing because, in a province that does not have the financial resources the province of Ontario happens to have at the moment, the educational programs cannot be maintained on that basis.
I urge the hon. member, if he thinks the payments that have been increased on education in Ontario are so great, to go to the universities and colleges and ask what they are getting in the circumstances. They are being faced with additional costs imposed by the province of Ontario and the federal government that have to be paid out of the 7 per cent increase given to education. They
have to pay the goods and services tax but of those funds starting next January. It is fine to say that education is exempt but there are many things that are not exempt, and the hon. member knows that. That will have to be taken out of the 7 per cent.
There are, in addition, the increases in the unemployment insurance that this government has imposed through its budget. Those payments are made by the universities and colleges in respect of all their employees at very significant additional cost to them.
In addition, there is the new provincial tax which has replaced the OHIP premiums and the employment tax in Ontario which will have to be paid. There is additional money to be paid for equalization programs within the colleges and universities to bring wage rates for women in the universities into line with those paid to men. Those programs are also costing a significant sum to colleges.
So even if they were to receive a full 7 per cent, before they can start allocating that money, statutory claims on that money will reduce the effective rate to a very low one. I am not being critical of the province of Ontario, but the 7 per cent is barely enough to keep any progress going in universities and colleges in Ontario.
If the hon. member would take the time to meet with some heads of colleges and discuss these issues with them, I am sure he would find, as I have, that the situation is much worse than he describes, that money is urgently required.
The cuts proposed by the government in Bill C-69 are seriously hurting the ability of the province of Ontario to make the payments that are required to these places of learning when they are facing the Draconian measures imposed by this government. It is time to stop this whittling away of the transfers, to change this policy around and to get this bill out of here.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, this is the third time that the Conservative government has attacked Established Programs Financing, EPF. Altogether since 1986, the sizable sum of approximately $31.1 billion has been withheld, of which $22.2 billion was for health care and $8.9 billion for
June 11, 1990

higher education. In his most interesting speech, for which I congratulate him, the hon. member said that the government is obsessed with cuts, cuts here, cuts there, and of course services, both for post-secondary education and for health, would suffer because the provinces must find the necessary funds in these established programs or elsewhere, that is, from taxation. That means the provinces will have to get more money from their own taxpayers to pay for these services that we all recognize as essential for a country that wants to keep our commitment to our youth and the importance of a good education and proper health care.
My question for the hon. member is fairly simple, given the importance of Bill C-69, the impact it will have on the provinces and on the taxpayers in general of these provinces, I wonder if he does not agree with me that since the provinces were not consulted before the bill was brought forward, since the government is unilaterally deciding to cut already established programs that require prior consultation if they are to be cut, I wonder if he agrees with me that while the courts are being asked to rectify, change or correct this measure, it would be better for the government and this Parliament to suspend discussion on Bill C-69 until the courts determine if it is constitutional.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier for his question. Yes I agree with him that the government would be well advised to withdraw this bill now before the House while court proceedings on its legality are under way, perhaps all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. Quite obviously if the government goes on with the study of this bill the Supreme Court might declare it unconstitutional. I also believe that the changes introduced by this bill, where certain provinces are considered as being veiy rich and others poor and where transfers to some provinces are reduced while others are not, are a new attack against federal-provincial programs.
We would be better off with a program under which all provinces would get similar payments determined under a fair, equitable and written agreement. The new program advocated in Bill C-69 is a far cry from that. It is an indication of failure on the part of the government.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The time for questions and comments has expired.
Point of Order

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 51 minutes.


POINT OF ORDER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I have not had a chance to have any consultations with my colleagues, but just a few moments ago the Prime Minister tabled the final communique of the First Ministers' meeting on the Constitution. I wonder if you would seek unanimous consent to have this particular document appended to Hansard as opposed to it simply appearing some day in the appropriate papers. I am seeking unanimous consent, Madam Speaker, as I think it is of sufficient importance that it ought to be part of today's proceedings.
I apologize that I did not have a chance to raise this with my hon. colleagues, but I do think it is of sufficient value.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, during the Prime Minister's speech I made the recommendation to the government House leader that the document be tabled. I would certainly want to amend that, if possible, if the House agrees, to have the document appended to today's Hansard. It would be easier to find and easier to refer to when constitutional questions are raised.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, these things are usually decided through consultation but it is not a mammoth document and I think it would be relatively easy to print. It is a very important document for all of us. If it represents our way through the maze to a Canada that is more united and stronger for the future, then perhaps history should record it as an appendix to today's Hansard. We would give our consent as well to that initiative.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion made by the hon. member for Kamloops. I understand there is unanimous consent.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For text of above document, see Appendix. ]

June 11, 1990
Government Orders


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES RESTRAINT ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-69, an act to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures, be read the third time and passed.
Nelson Andrew Riis: under-utilized. Doctors are calling for a fairer fee schedule and are now at loggerheads on a battleground with the provincial government. Not only do we have a shortage of nurses, but nurses are calling out to be more involved in the health care system. Psychiatric and community health care nurses are right now very close to a strike situation because of the inadequate and unreasonable compensation they are receiving.
I could go on and on about the health care crisis, not only in the country in general, not only in the province of British Columbia in general, but specifically in the community of Kamloops where there are nearly 3,000 on the waiting list for surgery.
How does this government respond? It curtails financial support for health care. That is a direct attack on sick people. I do not think Canadians realize that is going on. If they did, they would be feeling very much differently about-well they could not feel much differently about this government. About 85 per cent now would like to turf it out. That would be about 95 per cent if people understood what the government is doing to those people in our country who are sick today and will be sick in the future.
That is not the end of it. Bill C-69 went to committee. When legislation goes to committee, the idea is to bring in witnesses from around the country who are experts in education, health care and various forms of social services. We ask these very knowledgeable experts what they think about this legislation. Is it good legislation? Is it bad legislation? Can it be improved?
Every witness who was brought in to review Bill C-69 was totally against the bill. They went on in their own areas of expertise to lay out whole sets of reasons why this bill should be torn up and abandoned; not improved, changed or modified, but abandoned totally.
When the most knowledgeable witnesses in the country on health care, education, and social services are virtually unanimous that this is bad legislation which should be rejected, one would think the government would do the honourable thing, pull the legislation, and start over again. But did it do that? No. It is jamming it through the House of Commons knowing full well that with its majority it can probably get it through. Then it
Government Orders
will jam it into the Senate, the Senate will have a look at it, and so on.
We have seen that with piece after piece of legislation. Whether it is Draconian changes to unemployment insurance, clawing back pensions from people who have provided for their pension years, or clawing back family allowances from certain families, on all sorts of Draconian measures the government simply uses its majority muscle to ignore information and the experts who are knowledgeable about these areas in a father knows best or government knows best view.
When every witness says this is bad legislation, one would think that the government would at least pay some attention to it.
I am going to quote from one of the witnesses, Mr. George Pedersen, Chairman of the Board of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada. This is now moving toward post-secondary education. This man represents 89 different degree granting institutes across Canada. In other words, this is someone who speaks on behalf of tens of thousands of students and thousands of faculty and staff members from right across the country. He said:
The combined results of Bill C-69, and Bill C-96 passed in 1986, mean that federal cash transfers in support of post-secondary education may well disappear before the year 2000 in Quebec and Ontario, and before the 2010 in all the other provinces. Yet there is nothing on the horizon to replace this cornerstone of federal support for post-secondary education.
Bill C-69 imposes a two-year freeze on per capita transfers to the provinces in support of post-secondary education and health. The bill removes inflation protection from those transfers precisely during the period in which the GST will, by the government's own admission, cause a one-time jump in inflation.
The Chairman of the Board of the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada is completely condemning this legislation and forewarning Canadians that in all provinces of Canada, aside from Ontario and Quebec, by the year 2010 the federal government will not be making any cash payments to post-secondary education or health care. They will be gone by the year 2000 in Quebec and Ontario. That is not far off. It is just a handful of years. There will not be a single bit of contribution.
Do we want the country to abandon its support for its most valuable natural resource: its young people? Who is going to be hurt by this legislation? The students in our institutions are primarily the ones who will be casualties in this battle between the federal and provincial govern-

June 11, 1990
Government Orders
ments in terms of funding. That is to say nothing of the faculty and the staff who work in these institutions. Of course that means that research and development programs will suffer. We will be setting ourselves back significantly.
If we look at the evidence we find that the United States is investing significantly more in its post-secondary education system on a per capita basis than we are. Its students are getting a better deal, to say nothing about the students in western Europe and countries like Japan. Those countries have recognized that the most valuable and significant investment they can make is in young people, in the development of their talents and expertise, because that is where the action of the future is going to occur. Those are the people who will be leading the way in industry, business, education, politics, religion, and the arts. That is the best investment. Yet this government is curtailing investment in students and in our universities and colleges. It is cutting back at the same time as all of our competitors are investing heavily.
That is madness. That is taking us as a country on a suicidal course to failure. We have to be able to compete with these other countries and, if we do not have the trained young people with the necessary expertise and background, we will be unable to do so. That is why some of us feel so strongly that to proceed with Bill C-69 now is absolute madness. One would have to look long and hard to find justification for curtailing expenditures on young people and our post-secondary institutions, to say nothing about challenging medicare.
One may ask what I mean when I say "challenging medicare" and what I mean when I talk about a two-tier health care system. That is what I suggested the bill should be called, an act for the creation of a two-tier health care system in Canada.
When representatives of the Canadian Medical Association appeared before the committee they said that this will create a two-tier health care system in Canada. They said that the richer provinces, the have provinces, would likely be able to sustain a reasonable level of health care but that there was no way for the poorer provinces. If you happen to be living in a poorer province your access to
quality health care will be significantly less than if you live in a wealthier province. That is their definition of a two-tier system.
We must also look carefully at what is happening in Alberta and Quebec, but primarily in Alberta where increasing numbers of people are advocating a two-tier system. That means that we would have a general public health care system as we have today: regardless of who you are, where you live, what your income is, as a Canadian citizen you will have the right to access quality health care. However, if you have money and you can buy private health care, you will get special care and everybody else will be left with public health care.
We have seen that in England. That is now being advocated by a number of leading political voices from Alberta. I read with horror recently that Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute, that conservative think-tank in Vancouver-


John Harvard: Ultra-conservative.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Ultra-conservative in some respects but just conservative in my mind. He claims, in a series of articles written last year, that the United States health care model was superior to that of Canada. There is no one in this House who has not experienced, through our constituents, the horrors of the American health care system. If you have an accident down there and you do not have proper insurance, God help you.
Nearly 40 million Americans do not have any health care coverage whatsoever. They just cannot afford it. If you are picked up by an ambulance there they ask you if you have a credit card first. If you do not have a credit card you might not get the kind of care that you would expect in a western country.
For the Fraser Institute to suggest that this ought to be a model for Canada is absolutely frightening. He goes on to say that we should have that type of a system. It is scary that the conservative think-tank is now suggesting that we have private health care, health care for profit.
From the very beginning my party has fought and struggled for the principle that you ought not to profit from sick people; you ought not to profit from someone's ill health. I think one of the things that makes Canada stand out among nations around the world is that one of

June 11, 1990

the rights of being a Canadian citizen is that you have access to quality health care.
Funding to post-secondary education, health care, and the Canada Assistance Plan, which directly funds the various social services systems that we have in the provinces, is going to be capped.
This is all happening at the same time as other things are happening. For example, the staff of the Bank of Canada gave itself a nice increase the other day. We think John Crow, the great inflation fighter, the model for the country, gave himself an increase since 1987 of 35 per cent. This is all secret, as you well know, Mr. Speaker.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Tory times are hard times.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Tory times are tough times for some people, but if you happen to be a privileged person like John Crow these are very good times. What is sinister about this is that we do not know the facts. This is all secret. We cannot get the information. This ought not to be the case.
We also find out that while the heads of our largest Crown corporations are telling their employees to take cuts in pay or make very modest demands, they are giving themselves some nice increases. One of the vice-presidents of CN, while asking his employees to take a 4 per cent increase in pay, himself last year took a 39 per cent increase in pay. This is an example of don't do as I do, do as I say.
This is to say nothing about some of our senior public servants. The Minister of Finance is saying that we have got to hold the line, yet some of our senior public servants were getting increases over the past three years of 31 per cent.
There is a lot the government could cut. It could cut the size of cabinet. It could cut the size of the Prime Minister's Office, the largest PMO in Canadian history in terms of personnel. It could certainly make cuts to the government propaganda that we are bombarded with almost on a weekly basis telling us how good the GST is and so on.
Speaking of cuts, what about cutting some of the breaks that our large, profitable corporate friends receive? This is not a criticism of our large corporate friends. It is a criticism of the government that permits
Government Orders
thousands and thousands of large, profitable corporations to pay no income tax at all year after year.
Since those corporations do not pay any income tax at all, the government has to get some money some place. What does it do? It uses Bill C-69 to attack the sick and students by curtailing funds to our hospitals and post-secondary institutions.
You can gather from my comments, Mr. Speaker, that we do not support this bill. The New Democratic Party is opposed to this bill. As was every single witness who appeared before the committee, we are in complete and total opposition to this course of madness. That is the only way I can describe it.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in listening to the member for Kamloops and his usual erudite comments, but I was listening in vain. I sat here waiting and waiting for the magic formula that I was expecting to come out in this speech, that is, his clarion call to the other place to reject this bill when it gets there.
I know there is another step that has to be taken first, but he and I know that we get out-voted in this House on a fairly regular basis. We oppose this bill and the New Democratic Party opposes this bill, but it seems that in spite of our pleas many of the government members will vote for this bill.
I know that the member has found a new interest in the Senate. His party has changed its policy on the Senate. It no longer wants to abolish the Senate. It wants to preserve the Senate. It supports the Senate. It wants the Senate to chuck out government bills right, left, and centre. I wonder if it is now his party's view that the Senate ought to reject this bill if and when it gets there. I wonder if he could tell us about that.
Just so that he does not have to concentrate on one question that he might find a little embarrassing, I will ask a second one. The second question he could deal with is about the recent increases in Public Service and Crown corporation salaries which in the view of our party, as discussed today in Question Period, far exceed the wage rates the government is paying to other employees and far exceed the government's own guidelines. I wonder if he would care to comment on government waste in this regard as well.

June 11, 1990
Government Orders


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I am always pleased to respond to my hon. friend from Kingston and the Islands. His questions are not necessarily that thoughtful, often, but interesting nevertheless.
Let's tackle the last one first. He asked me what I feel about the increases that senior managers at the deputy minister level, including their bonuses, received in the last year or so.
I was looking at a graph which shows that over the past three years deputy ministers and senior managers received compensation increases of 31.2 per cent. To be fair, that is not across the board, but to a select number of the senior mandarins in our system. That is not bad, Mr. Speaker, when you consider that over that period of time almost everybody else received about a 10 per cent increase. The deputy ministers and senior managers received in excess of 30 per cent.
It is that kind of symbolism that bothers people. While the government states that it is trying to hold the line, we find out that there were many senior officials who received these huge increases in pay.
This is not an increase to a salary of $30,000, nothing of the sort. Quite the contrary. As a matter of fact, if we compare the rates of our senior civil service to those in the United States, ours are significantly higher. They are getting increases and bonuses on top of relatively high salaries to begin with. However, that is only one small area, but symbolically valuable.
More appropriate is what happened in the Bank of Canada, where all of the senior staff got huge increases, including the Governor of the Bank of Canada himself. That was what bothered people most.
My hon. friend talks about his friends in the Senate, the persons who just voted themselves a $153 a day bonus to show up for work. If they simply show up and sit there, they get $153 on top of all their other regular pay.
I want to clarify a point that my hon. friend made. He was not certain whether or not I oppose the Senate. He will remember very vividly, I suspect, just a few days ago when we had a vote in the House of Commons, and I might say at the NDP's urging, questioning whether we should even vote to provide operating funds for the Senate. We raised this and we decided to have a vote on
providing operating funds for the Senate. I noticed with interest that all of the Conservatives voted in favour of supplying that money to the Senate to enable them to operate. All the Liberals in the House that day voted in favour of support for the Senate, but no New Democrats. The New Democrats voted unanimously against supplying a single cent of operating money for the Senate.
I do not know how much clearer you can get in terms of how you feel about the Senate.


Ms. Clancy:: But you want them to stop the GST?


Nelson Andrew Riis: No. I said our position is to vote at every opportunity no money for the Senate. The fact that they are sitting there and are now getting an extra $153 a day, let them do something, particularly the Liberals over there, because the majority of the people in the Senate right now are Liberal appointees. We think that the Liberals sometimes speak two languages. I would not say double speak-yes I would, double speak.
On the one hand, they say that they are opposed to the GST, but I guess they did not mean the Liberals in the Senate were opposed to the GST. The Liberals here voted against it, but already in the Senate the Liberals have voted in favour, in principle, of the 7 per cent goods and services tax. We are suggesting to those Liberals in the Senate to do what their colleagues in the House of Commons did and vote against the GST, because it means that the bill will be killed. We will save the taxpayers of Canada an incredible nightmare, not only in terms of compliance, if you are a small business operator, but also the nightmare of having to pay out hundreds and perhaps thousands of dollars in additional tax every year.
I make an appeal to my hon. friend, the member for Kingston and the Islands to wander down the hallway, talk to some of his Liberal pals in the Senate and ask them to do what they do in the House, and say: "If we are going to say as a political party that we oppose the GST, surely to goodness you folks in there should now vote against it".
I encourage my hon. friend to do just that. While it is there, let's take advantage of this group. However, it seems like those appeals are going in one ear and out the other, as far as the Senators are concerned, because they do not seem to be taking the opportunity to defeat the GST very seriously.
June 11, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: A supplementary question, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I would not call my question supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether you noticed, but the hon. member for Kamloops did not answer the question I asked him. He made a lovely speech about the Senate again, trying to defend his party's cock-eyed policies in this regard.
On the one hand, they came in here with their little motion the other day suggesting we cut the expenditure to the Senate, while on the other hand, his leader is in Montreal trumpeting that she wants the Senate to block this bill. Honestly, Mr. Speaker, they cannot have it both ways. Either the Senate has its money so that it can operate and block the bill, or it does not get its money and it closes down, and we get rid of it.
The member for Kamloops has it all mucked up. His leader on the one hand says, "block the bill". He, on the other hand, says, "close her down". I really wish the party would make up its mind. However, I will leave that debate aside for the time being.
I will go back to the question I put to the hon. member. Does he now call on the Senate to block Bill C-69, if and when it gets there? This bill is undoubtedly going to pass in this House because undoubtedly the members opposite are going to vote for it when the vote takes place. I am asking the hon. member for Kamloops, never mind telling us all about his views on the Senate, will he call on the Senate to block this bill as his party has called on the Senate to block the goods and services tax bill, Bill C-62? That is all I ask, and I would be delighted to hear his answer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are 30 seconds left for the hon. member's questions or comments. The hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, let me respond this way. We had a motion before the House a week ago reminding the House that the duties of the Senate are clearly understood, that they have the right and the constitutional authority to stop legislation. I do not like that idea, but that is what they have. As a matter of fact, that is why we brought in the motion to do away with them and put
Government Orders
them out of their misery. At the moment, they do have the authority.
Every group that I am aware of that appeared before the committee on Bill C-69 has asked in one way or the other for this bill to be stopped. I am hoping that there will be consistency with my Liberal colleagues. We have not voted on this last stage. I assume that my Liberal friends will vote against this legislation. I assumed that they would also vote against the Senate, but they did not do that, so they surprise me from time to time.
However, I am going to assume that the Liberals will vote against this legislation because it is so Draconian. If they do, then I will also assume that their colleagues in the Senate will. Presumably, they act as a group. When I say Liberals, Mr. Speaker, I do not differentiate between Liberals who sit here, Liberals who sit there, or Liberals who sit in Ontario, Quebec, or anywhere else. Liberals presumably take the Liberal Party position. That is not the case. They seem to take different positions, depending on different parts of the country. I am assuming that however the Liberals vote here, the Liberals in the Senate will vote accordingly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The questions and comments are terminated. On debate, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, we just heard another evasive answer from the NDP whose members avoid the question all the time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Kamloops on a point of order.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Since we are talking about the Senate, and whether people respond or not, it appears that we have a new senator who has been appointed. Mr. Waters from Alberta has apparently been appointed to the Senate. The dynamics are already starting to change.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier on debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am sure the Speaker will feel a warm sentiment towards that appointment.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to participate in this debate briefly, as I did at second reading, and make it clear that the Liberal caucus will be voting against this measure. We will, as we have all along this process, keep telling

June 11, 1990
Government Orders
the government how the proposal before the House is negative and bad.
Mr. Speaker, in my opening comments I would like explain that the purpose of Bill C-69 is to restrain the government's public spending by a two-year freeze on federal transfers to the provinces under Established Programs Financing, including post-secondary education and health care.
Second, this bill proposes to cap federal transfers under the Canada Assistance Plan to Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta at 5 per cent for the next two years.
Third, Bill C-69 proposes to eliminate the Canadian Exploration Incentive Program and finally, it proposes a two-year freeze on Public Utilities Income Tax Transfers to the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, two aspects of particular interest to me are of course Established Programs Financing which has a direct impact on Canadians because it affects health care and postsecondary education, and the Canada Assistance Plan which is also very important to Canadians because it plan helps families or individuals facing serious problems due to poverty to cope with these problems.
Mr. Speaker, cutbacks in transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education and health care-in fact, the three provinces that are most severely affected are Alberta, British Columbia and my own province Ontario-will force these provinces to accept a reduction in services, reduction in service quality or a reduction in access to these services, or if the provinces so decide, they will have to substantially increase the provincial tax burden of each resident. According to the figures I have before me, in the three provinces in question, the tax bill for each citizen will increase $576 during the next five years.
This is the third time, Mr. Speaker, that this government has attacked Established Programs Financing since 1986. All told, total cutbacks in program financing between 1986-87 and 1994-95 will reach the astronomical figure of $31.1 billion, as follows: $22.2 billion which should have gone to health care and $8.9 billion to higher education.
Were the provinces to choose not to raise their taxes they would have to shift these reductions on to hospitals-as I said earlier, fewer services, fewer beds, limit on costly surgery-or to students who will be expected to pay higher tuition fees in exchange for the privilege of attending overcrowded lectures and working with outmoded equipment which badly need to be replaced. The ultimate effect of all this will be lower post-secondary education quality throughout the country.
Mr. Speaker, let me remind you of a statement made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in March 1982. The Minister of Finance said to the House, and I quote his very words: "Let us not make hospitals, universities and colleges a battleground between the federal government and the provincial governments. Let us solve those problems outside of that arena".
That is what he said barely eight years ago, Mr. Speaker, but today the same Minister of Finance has changed his mind, as he often does, and imposes restrictive measures on universities and hospitals in spite of the fact that he once stated that we should not shift the fiscal burden on to these two services.
With respect to the Canada Assistance Plan, the lower benefits to poorer people in the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia fly in the face of this government's commitment to help, and I quote, to help people in need".
Mr. Speaker, I should think that poor people in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia are just as poor as other poor people who live in Quebec, Manitoba or Nova Scotia. Being poor is a sad situation, but we do have poor people in Ottawa-Vanier. Mr. Speaker, who will tell me that a poor man in Ottawa-Vanier does not have the right to the same kind of attention and the same kind of assistance as everybody else to meet his own needs? Who will argue that a poor man in Ottawa-Vanier is not as poor as a poor man in Nova Scotia or Quebec?
Mr. Speaker, I find this formula totally unacceptable and I object to it, and others have decided to take the matter to court. Hon. members would know that a province has gone to court to argue about the constitutionality of Bill C-69. I wish it good luck, Mr. Speaker, because this measure has been introduced by a government which is running out of steam, which is discouraging and discouraged, and which may well need help from
June 11, 1990

the courts to get back on course and steer the country properly.
As for mining exploration, I will let other colleagues speak to this issue because for the time being it does not seriously concern my constituents.
I would like to make a few remarks about two or three important aspects of education. In my riding, Mr. Speaker, are the University of Ottawa; a community college, Algonquin College; and a French-language college that is being set up. Besides suffering from the federal government's transfer payment cuts since 1986, these three institutions have been the target of many government policies. In addition to the extra costs for health insurance in Ontario, the University of Ottawa, which is entirely in my riding, will be hard hit by the new goods and services tax. I suggest that hon. members give a little thought to the impact this goods and services tax will have on university administrations. The Unemployment Insurance Act, Mr. Speaker, will cost them more; for example, for the University of Ottawa alone it will cost $400,000 more a year. With the freeze in fiscal transfers, we have reason to fear that the University of Ottawa will have to spend more time claiming the funds it needs than being concerned about an effective teaching program. That worries me, Mr. Speaker. When the administrators tell me that they spend more time asking for money and claiming their due, it is disturbing.
We listen to the students, Mr. Speaker. Here is what the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa said recently when it spoke against the freeze in transfer payments, and I know these students. It considers the freeze a major loss for post-secondary education. Marc Molgat, the vice-president for external affairs of the federation, said, "Post-secondary education is a right and an investment in our country's social and economic development." He thinks it is unfair of the federal government not to require that the provinces spend what they receive or not to spend fixed amounts on education. The federation is understandably opposed to any increase in tuition fees charged to students.
Mr. Speaker, I have tabled in this House petitions signed by hundreds and thousands of students in my
Government Orders
riding who are worried about the condition of their institutions. I will read some of the complaints contained in their petitions: overcrowded lecture halls, deteriorating lab equipment, lock of library resources, high student-teacher ratio, elimination of certain courses, deteriorating buildings and facilities. All this is true. It is typical today of Canada's post-secondary education system. This is not just in Ottawa. It is like that across the country.
I shall continue: native students, the handicapped and other students who are socially and economically disadvantaged are under-represented at the post-secondary level. We all know that. These are the consequences of 12 years of declining financing per student since the present legislation on post-secondary financing was passed in 1977.
Mr. Speaker, this is still going on today. These students reject injustice, soaring tuition fees and other costs that today are a consequence of the deteriorating quality of our post-secondary education system. These students have sounded the alarm. They want us to understand, as Canadians, that this neglect on the part of the government will cost us dearly in that we will have to change our policy towards these post-secondary institutions and perhaps loosen the purse strings a bit.
When it appeared before the finance committee on May 16 this year, the Canadian Federation of Students protested these new measures and said it doubted the federal government's commitment to quality and fully accessible post-secondary education. I quote the federation: "Regardless of these pre-election commitments, the Conservative Party has repeatedly reduced the rate of growth of transfer payments for post-secondary education." The chairperson of the federation, Jane Arnold, stated, and I quote: "In constant dollars, the cuts to post-secondary education are even more drastic when consideration is given to the rise in course costs and educational materials. In addition, tuition has doubled at most institutions in the last 10 years. The crisis in education funding means larger classes, decreased resources for research, inadequate library facilities and deteriorating institutions."

June 11, 1990
Government Orders

For members of the House who represent universities and post-secondary institutions as I do, it is an important debate on the quality of education and the access to education.
I was reviewing my notes and looking at the history of EPF transfers. It is disquieting. It is worrisome to me to see post-secondary education and research in those institutions going down, and to see the access to those institutions being restricted to those who can afford to pay. I find that difficult to accept in my Canada, because I was brought up in that period of time when one went to university if one's father and mother had the money to pay. I thought we got rid of that. I thought that now post-secondary education was available to all those who met the basic requirements of admission to the institutions.
Every day I meet young people who say to me: "I cannot go to university because I cannot afford it." I thought we had addressed that problem. I guess we still have a long way to go before we have paid justice to that issue.

Mr. Speaker, I remember the Nielsen Report. I do not know if hon. members will remember it. But this statement that I am going to read is more disturbing than anything I have read so far. The Nielsen Report was prepared by the government, by their Deputy Prime Minister and a committee or task force charged with examining education and research programs. The Nielsen Report says that no longer contributing to the basic funding of post-secondary educational institutions would be justified because the Constitution gives the federal government no specific role in this field.
Mr. Speaker, that is the way the Conservative government is going. According to Statistics Canada, the federal government spent $6.7 billion for education and training, an increase of 1.8 per cent compared to a 3.6 per cent increase for total government spending. In 1975, 7.3 per cent of federal government spending was for education, whereas in 1988, it was only 6.7 per cent. Although the number of students attending post-secondary institutions rose 4.4 per cent between 1985 and 1989, government spending for education rose by 2.3 per
cent (annually) compared to a 4.2 per cent (annual) increase for the consumer price index.
Before slashing the spending of higher education institutions by cutting transfer payments to the provinces, the federal government, together with the provinces, should draw up a specific plan setting forth a coherent policy covering the administrative and financial responsibilities for post-secondary education.

I know I only have a few minutes and I want to address the other very important question, health care.
I received a letter from a constituent of mine, Dr. Robert Walker, and I want to read one paragraph of that letter because it touches on the subject matter. Dr. Walker stated: "I am writing as a constituent and, in particular, as a family physician who works daily with economically disadvantaged families and individuals in an Ottawa community health centre. My concern is the ceiling placed on the Canada Assistance Plan moneys for Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia in the recent federal budget. I want to relate my strong disapproval of this decision. As it so adversely affects the lives of many of my patients, I request that you direct efforts to ensure that the proposed ceiling on federal dollars directed to the provinces for people in need be deleted from Bill C-69."
Dr. Walker goes on to explain that a large percentage of patients are either low-income or welfare recipients. Dr. Walker makes the case that these people need our assistance, need our help, and that Bill C-69 does not address the problems of those people.
Indeed, by voting against this bill, I will try to register in the name of all my constituents, a strong vote of protest against the government.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to compliment my colleague, the hon. member from Ottawa-Vanier, and to say that, as a member from another city where the universities are an integral and vital part of the life of our city, I was particularly taken by his comments with regard to what the cutbacks in funding in this bill will do to our universities.
I would like to ask the hon. member if he has had much dealing with the students, in particular, with regard to the increases in tuition fees. I know it is not quite the same in the province of Ontario as in the province of Nova Scotia. The situation that is becoming more and more crucial in Nova Scotia is that as the
June 11, 1990

universities have to cut back, the tuition fees go up and the university students cannot any longer possibly earn the money to supplement student loans or find other sources of income to pay for their university tuition. Even if the student finds a job, it is just not possible to earn enough in one summer to supplement whatever he or she may have to pay tuition fees.
I am wondering if this particular problem exists in the Ottawa area as well.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Halifax for her question. It is an important question because constitutionally, education is a provincial matter. We have a variety of programs in certain provinces so that access to universities is nearly a right, whereas in other provinces the access to universities is pretty near impossible.
I have some press clippings here from the Federation of Canadian Students which explains the lack of equality of access to post-secondary education across this country and how difficult it is to pursue a career with university training today unless one can go into post-graduate studies or, for that matter, graduate studies.
I know for a fact that in my riding many students planning to go into the sciences, arts or other faculties at the University of Ottawa cannot because of financial difficulties. Students must pay the academic fee that is required plus cope with the expenditures that they have living outside their homes.
We must never forget that every community, hamlet, village and every town of this country must have access to post-secondary education. We must have a program that is designed to give everybody, wherever he lives, a chance on an equal basis, to have access to not only the post-secondary education which he or she chooses, but the financing allowed.
We have some good programs. We have some good student loan programs, but we have to think up new theories and new good programs to give our young
Government Orders
people wherever they live in this country, a chance for a post-secondary education.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to have an opportunity to speak again to Bill C-69. I feel that it is very important to speak, because this bill strikes at the very heart of what it is to be a Canadian.
If you ask a Canadian to define a Canadian, probably the initial reaction may well be that we are different and that we are special. But what is that difference? As Canadians, we are forever wrestling with defining that difference. We are seemingly wrestling with our identity, trying to define just exactly what it means to be a Canadian.
We know that we are different from our southern neighbours, yet we cannot always define what those differences are. Yet we are all tremendously proud to be Canadian.
Upon a closer look, there are many differences between our two nations, the most obvious being the social programs that we have in Canada. Canadians pride themselves in the manner in which they take care of their children, the poor, the elderly and the sick.
We take extra special care to make sure that all Canadians, regardless of their social, economic, cultural or linguistic backgrounds, are given every opportunity to succeed and lead a successful, satisfying and productive life. Canadians have always held on to these values as being distinctively Canadian.
We have always placed more emphasis on our government's role in these areas. The present government seems intent on becoming more American than on maintaining our sovereignty and programs that are essential to the Canadian value system. It seems intent on changing our value system and I say that that is wrong.
Bill C-69 cuts at the very heart of the Canadian value system. It sets a new agenda on how we spend money on post-secondary education, health care, and on assistance to the needy in this country. In 1982 the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre rose in his place in the House and declared that any cuts to Established Programs Financing: "could have disastrous effects on the universities and on the colleges, on the hospital funding and on the

June 11, 1990
Government Orders
operation of hospitals. Let us not make hospitals, universities and colleges a battleground between the federal government and the provincial governments. Let us solve those problems not on the backs of hospitals and universities; let us solve those problems outside of that arena."
That quote was from the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre in 1982. Had I been a member of this House at that time and on that day, and had I been sitting in this House I probably would have applauded that member of Parliament.
Since then, we know that he is on the government side of the House and has become the Minister of Finance. My only comment to him at this time is a great big resounding, "Boo."
Everyday Canadians are becoming less tolerant of the hypocrisy of the government. In particular, the Minister of Finance is one whose words are often radically different than his actions. If we look at the proposed goods and services tax, there are so many broken promises that I am now embarrassed for the minister. I wonder how he could go back on so many of his promises, as he has, and still look at himself in the mirror.
Look at the government's promises on child care, environment, unemployment, Atlantic fisheries and income tax. There are all kinds of examples. We can talk about what we read today on the front page of our local newspaper, The Ottawa Citizen. It states that while the government asks Canadians to tighten their belts, federal bosses received bonuses up to 25 per cent. Some of these bonuses work out to as much as $100,000. That is absolutely disgraceful.
Again, let me talk about what Bill C-69 will do to post-secondary education. I have said in this House in the past that funding for post-secondary education should not be seen as an expenditure. It is an investment in our young people and an investment in Canada's future. Bill C-69 is set to act upon the 1990 budget, which in effect freezes any growth in federal funding for post-secondary education.
The EPF helps the provinces to carry out their responsibilities with respect to health care and post-secondary education. Since the federal government provides equal per capital financial assistance to all
provinces, the freeze means that the payments will grow only with the population increase of each province, or about 1 per cent nationally. The impact of the EPF cuts on federal transfers to the provinces will amount to about $3.1 billion over five years. When coupled with previous EPF reductions since 1983, the cumulative effect of the cuts is obvious and amounts to $8.9 billion.
The cumulative reduction in federal contributions from the 1986-87 to 1994-95 fiscal year amounts to an incredible $31.1 billion. All these cuts, coupled with the government's recently imposed 3 per cent fee on student loans will increase the cost of post-secondary education to all students, particularly to those who can least afford it.
Federal spending on education has increased at an average annual rate of 2.3 per cent since 1985, while the consumer price index has averaged 4.2 per cent per year. This shows that, despite its rhetoric, the present government is doing very little for education in this country. The government should be encouraging students to participate in higher education, instead of slashing its affordability. Ironically, early last month, the junior science minister complained that a lack of skilled scientists and engineers threatens the ability of Canadian industiy to compete in the world. He pointed out that Canada has only 90 scientists and researchers for every 100,000 people compared with 280 per 100,000 in the United States and 240 for 100,000 in Japan.
While his complaints are justified, his accusations as to who is to blame or who is at fault are not. He puts the blame squarely on the backs of Canadian business, without mentioning the inaction of his own government.
While it is true that less than 3 per cent of Canadian companies are involved in R and D on any scale, the government must begin to accept its vital role in this important area. This is clearly not being done. Despite repeated promises by the Prime Minister to double the amount of money Canada spends on research and development, statistics indicate that Canada's percentage of R and D spending has actually decreased.
Recently in Edmonton the minister rejected a key recommendation for a major R and D funding boost from 10 provincial and two national science and technology advisory councils.
June 11, 1990

Canada has a negative trade balance and a growing trade deficit in every single sector of the advanced technology industry. According to Dr. Fraser Mustard, President of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, unless the Canadian scientific community receives more money, "we might not be a trading nation, we might be a fading nation".
The government is just standing by and letting our high tech sector become more and more of a branch plant economy. Increasingly, companies specializing in R and D, such as Lumonics, are being sold to foreign interests. If we look at what happened to Leigh Instruments as an example of the type of commitment foreign interests have for our workers, we are in big trouble. Dr. Polanyi, a Canadian Nobel Prize winning scientist advises Canadian scientists to go to the United States, which would result in a terrible brain drain if our brilliant young minds are forced to leave Canada for higher prospects elsewhere.
We need our scientists and researchers to remain in Canada. We need our scientific and technologic advances and potential to remain in Canadian hands if we wish to have long-term prosperity. It is the responsibility of the government to work with business to ensure this happens. Cutting back EPF transfers to the provinces does not go in that direction. It is a step backward.
The cuts to EPF transfers will also have a detrimental effect on health care here in Canada. The President of the Canadian Hospital Association, Mrs. Carol Clemen-hagen, told the Standing Committee on Finance that:
- prior to the February 20 budget, the CHA calculated that the cumulative loss the provinces have already experienced from 1986-87 to 1989-90 because of 1he 2 per cent reduction in EPF growth was $2.6 billion, and the projected cumulative loss to the provinces from 1990-91 to 1995-96 because of the combined 3 per cent reduction in EPF growth is $19.4 billion.
Reductions in the EPF transfers challenge provincial governments either to reduce health care and post-secondary education budgets or to increase taxes. We believe a national framework, a stable and adequate EPF funding is a prerequisite to achieving health goals. In the case of health manpower, cuts to EPF threaten both the health system in which health professionals work and the educational system in which they were trained.
Let us hope that the government will realize before we have gone too far down the road to turn back, that by breaking the commitment to a vital social program, the government is breaking a long-standing Canadian tradi-
Government Orders
tion of caring for the sick. This bill lashes out at that fundamental Canadian belief. This is appalling.
Now I would like to turn to the cuts to the Canada Assistance Plan, which are cuts to the poorest in the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. The poor in Alberta, B.C. and Ontario are just as poor as the poor in the other provinces. It is my belief that the cuts to CAP contradict the government's commitment to come to the aid of those who are in need.
As I outlined at the second reading of this bill, under CAP the federal and provincial governments share equally in the cost of welfare payments and basic necessities such as food, shelter, clothing and dental care for the poor, and essential services for the disabled.
This is the first time in the history of the program that CAP has been limited. It is a shame. While the government has raised taxes 32 times since it took office and collects $48 billion more today than it did five years ago, I find it incredible that it has cut this essential program. It claims that it is cutting these things in the name of deficit reduction, but I believe that most Canadians feel that certain things are essential, and that health care is one of those things.
Cutting CAP will force the provinces either to raise taxes or more poor will become even poorer with no hope.
Finally, the government has also frozen public utilities income tax transfers over the next two years. These programs provide for over 95 per cent of the federal income tax collected from certain privately owned electric and gas utilities. The program was initiated in order to put private electric and gas companies which pay federal tax on an equal footing with Crown corporations in the resource sector which do not pay tax.
I firmly believe that Canadian opportunities must be fundamental to our way of life. They have been in the past and will continue to be in the future, especially when the present government is replaced by a Liberal government in two or three years.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, the present government has attempted to tear at the very heart of what it is to be Canadian and I firmly believe that Canadians will, nevertheless, maintain those same values. Canadians will stand up and overcome the hypocrisy of this present government. As I said at second reading, this government has lost all sense of propriety and this is a

June 11, 1990
Government Orders
reflection of the extreme limits to which it will go to force its will on the people.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I have looked at Bill C-69 and gone over the remarks of the Minister of State for Finance in first introducing this bill. Part of the difficulty I have had over the last 18 months that I have been in Parliament is my difficulty with the plan or the concept that this government seems to be heading toward. I looked at the remarks of the minister for some consolation in this particular area. I would like to just pull out some of the remarks that he talked about in referring to this bill.
The minister talked talks about the measures in this bill "having a clear goal, controlling inflation, and securing steady non-inflationary economic growth in Canada". He went on to say "that attaining this goal will lead to a bright economic future that, of course, we all want for this country". We have no argument with a bright economic future.
He went on to say that "the restraint measures as set out in this bill are part of the government's consistent comprehensive plan to ensure that Canadians benefit from a standard of living and a quality of life that is second to none". Once again, it is a goal that certainly we in Canada would like to strive toward. Later he goes on to say "this bill takes a further step along the path we have been following since 1984". I think that is the crux of the matter right there.
It is this path that this government has been following since 1984 and more and more seems to be leading Canada into a polarity; a polarity of economic regions, a polarity of economic roots and a polarity of individuals, some who are poor and some who are rich. More and more the legislation that we have seen put before the House of Commons has been an attack on middle income groups and the poor in this country.
Once again, as we look through Bill C-69, I suggest that this once more is an attack on that which the minister said we were striving toward, an attack on economic equality for the regions and for the individuals of Canada.
I point to an article in The Toronto Star, February 26, 1990. It is an article on social policy by Leonard Shifrin and I quote from it:
The two-year freeze on federal contributions to the provinces for health and post-secondary education affects everyone. Freezing contributions for legal aid and cutting funds for social housing aims directly at the poor.
And so does the ceiling on Canada Assistance Plan (CAP) contributions to Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, because CAP is the funding program for welfare payments and services to the poor.
It points out in that article that all across the political spectrum, here in Ontario and in the rest of Canada, we have been appalled to learn that children are the largest group on welfare and the chief victims to the rules that keep mother-led families dependent on it. Once again, I point out through these quotes that what we have seen in the capping of the Canada Assistance Plan is a direct attack on the poor.
I wonder about the methods that have been used in this process, the process in the UI bill, in the clawback legislation and in the goods and service tax, of setting specific deadlines and then pushing to try to meet those deadlines. When looking at some of the history of this, I looked at the twenty-seventh annual premiers conference in Edmonton, Alberta, in August 1986, and what the provincial premiers saw when they looked at the Canada Assistance Plan and Established Programs Financing.
I want to quote from various sections of that conference to make the point that what we have seen is a breaking down of the consultative process between the government and the opposition, the government and the provinces, the government and the regions and the government and groups that will be affected by the legislation that they bring in. They quote, first of all, from the federal-provincial agreements section of the communique which states: "Premiers recognize that federal-provincial agreements and arrangements have become an important instrument of government. They expressed concern that unilateral changes to these agreements and arrangements are very disruptive".
Later, under tax reform, it states: "The premiers stressed that tax reform must not be used by the federal government as an excuse to erode provincial health and
June 11, 1990

post-secondary education support by further cutbacks and transfer payments. The process of tax reform must be open to consultation among all Canadians. The premiers emphasized the need for federal-provincial consultation, co-operation and consensus building".
What we see in this bill is a breakdown of that system. There have apparently been very few consultations. I recognize that the premier of the province of British Columbia, in his zeal to advise the federal government on how to manage its financial problems, suggested that it cut the Established Programs Financing and the transfer payments from the federal to the provincial government by up to 15 per cent, and cries when that has been done. That is not what we in British Columbia have been looking for. We have been looking for a proper priorization and a proper consultation process as to where some of these cuts, if they are needed, should take place.
The committee went through hearings in a very short time span, hearing some groups and refusing others the opportunity of appearing before the committee. Once again, the consultative process has broken down. The federal government has not consulted with the premiers, the provinces, the medical profession, the post-secondary education institutions or the poverty groups in trying to come up with some fair and equitable way for the future. Let me just touch briefly for those in the riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt on exactly what this bill is and what it attacks. The Established Programs Financing is the method by which the federal government transfers to the provinces funding for such things as post-secondary education and health. It is put into the general provincial coffers to be used primarily for health and education, but not necessarily in that manner. The Canada Assistance Plan is to be used for welfare payments, social assistance, counselling and other things dealing with the social assistance and welfare areas.
Having said that, I would like to turn directly to the Established Programs Financing and look at how this will affect, in my province, things like hospitals and universities. Specifically, I fear, in looking at the cutbacks in these areas, and this fear has been set out by some of the university groups which have appeared before the committee, that we are looking at a move toward the gradual privatization of our universities. More and more, funding is being cut out from our post-secondary education units
Government Orders
and more and more they are having to turn to the private sector to try to get their funding.
I have a fear of that move toward privatization because, as I said in my introductory remarks, this polarization we have seen, a polarization toward the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer, is going to translate into the area of higher education. Access through privatization will be cut off, the cost will increase for tuition and, therefore, we are again going to set aside a whole group in our society who will be unable to attend university. We therefore put down those most in need of the assistance.
We have a problem within the Okanagan and Similkameen regions in that we have a very high percentage of seniors in those regions, in some cases triple the national average of 11 per cent. One of the larger hospitals in the area, the Penticton Regional Hospital, has done a paper that looks at age-related cost in their particular facility. The Penticton Regional Hospital is a 200-bed acute care referral hospital for the south Okanagan and the Similkameen regions and serves a population base of approximately 65,000 people. In reviewing some of the costs that they have added, over and above other areas within the province of British Columbia alone, they note that the hospital costs for our seniors is substantially higher. I point particularly to the populations in the towns, for instance, like Keremeos, where over 34 per cent of the residents of that community are over 65 years of age. Oliver is pushing 35 per cent of the population over 65 years of age, Osoyoos is in the area of 33 per cent, and it goes on.
This study used 1981 figures which are now substantially out of date and it states that in the over-all area it was almost 20 per cent at that time in 1981. Those figures have been shown, in a recent study, to be substantially lower. But the added costs in that area are for seniors, who have been shown to have additional hospital care costs, because of the very nature of the time of their life. The cuts in these particular programs are again attacking one area of our society.
We know that recently in the communities of Grand Forks, Merritt, Kelowna, and Oliver residents have gone through the traumatic experience of having one of their number not able to get adequate health care, in that they required transplants or specific operations to the heart or other parts of the body. They were not able to get that care without having their names placed first on long

June 11, 1990
Government Orders
waiting lists. By the time their names were at the top of these long waiting lists it was too late; they had already died. That is the type of thing that I am pointing to.
The nurses have made the situation clear in some of their submissions. They have said: "Pressure is growing to get rid of the medicare system Canadians know and cherish". They tell us further that medicare is in trouble. "Canadians had better watch out or there won't be a public health care system left in this country". Those statements come from a release dated May 1989, in which they referred to some of the cutbacks at that time.
They tell us that each day the nursing shortage in all provinces continues to grow. Each day our Canadian standards of safe, quality patient care is becoming just a memory. That is not what we in Canada want. We want a health care system that is a system second to none, that provides for all our citizens regardless of their ability to pay, their economic circumstances, or the region in which they live. We want to provide them with health care, post-secondary education, and adequate welfare payments so that they can live in some happiness and harmony as they go through their lives.


John Harvard: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to my hon. friend from British Columbia.
Let me say off the top that I happen to believe that strong federal government support for a national health care system is absolutely crucial. Without strong federal government support, I do not think we can have a universal health care system that will last that long into the future. When there is a slippage of government support, soon after there is talk of user fees, extra billing, and that kind of thing.
I would ask my hon. friend from British Columbia whether he is concerned about the coming of a two-tier health care system in the country. Once the erosion begins, once there is talk of extra billing and user fees, then it will not be long until there is a two-tier health care system. There will be a publicly paid for system for the poor and one for those who can afford user fees and extra billing. They will be the rich. That is how you get a two-tier health care system, if you do not have strong
federal government support. I am wondering whether my friend has a concern in that area.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any doubt about it. As we look at what has happened over the last six years in particular we have seen a major attack on our health care system and on our universal programs.
I firmly believe-and I pointed it out in my earlier remarks-that we are seeing the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer. This is leading us to a two-tier system. We have already seen that in the hospitals in British Columbia. I would suggest that it is also the case in hospitals in other areas. If you have the money, you can get in to get your operations. If you have the money, you can get in to get your heart transplant or your bypasses. However, if you do not have the money, you sit on the rolls and wait for that opportunity. Sometimes, as I have mentioned, in places like Merritt, Grand Forks, and Kelowna that time did not come. It was too late for some.
It has been pointed out by Harry Lali, an alderman in Merritt that as a result of cuts in unemployment insurance more people will be forced into social assistance programs. Merritt is an area that has over 1,000 people on the unemployment insurance rolls now. The cap put on those programs by this particular bill will cause us to see that more and more people in the city of Merritt will have difficulty in keeping up to any semblance of being above the poverty line.
Another area I would like to touch on briefly concerns day care. In the city of Merritt the Snoopy Day Care Centre is no longer in operation because of a lack of funding. Funding for day care is provided through the Established Programs Financing. It gives an opportunity for day care facilities in those areas to operate. It is veiy difficult for those looking for jobs, single mothers and single fathers, if they do not have somebody who is near to look after their children. Now in that city there is no day care, thanks to both provincial and federal cuts. This is the type of thing that we have to look at and look after in the future.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to take part in the debate this evening on third reading of Bill C-69, An Act
June 11, 199Q

to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures.
I spoke before on this bill during the second reading stage. At that time I explained to the House how poorly this government managed its affairs in the cancellation of the CEIP, the Canadian Exploration Incentives Program. The government announced the cancellation of this program without any consultation with the industry, without talking to the people involved.
The same thing happened with regard to CFB Sum-merside. This government announced its closure in the budget of April 1989 without any consultation with the people of Prince Edward Island, and obviously without any thought or planning for what would happen to Summerside and the entire area.
The role of government has always been managing the present while planning and organizing for the future. I grant that there are a number of times and situations when government cannot plan, but the goal and certainly the intention of government should always be to plan ahead.
Obviously this government is not planning ahead. Here we have another piece of legislation, Bill C-69, which is one more example of the government's lack of planning.
Within the title of this bill we see the words "enable restraint". Canadians want to see restraint take place but certainly not at a cost to the future development of the country.
Islanders also want restraint. They want to help and do their fair share in tackling the tremendous deficit that we have in this country, but, again, they do not want to do it at the expense of important policy programs such as health and education.
The government's financial plan for 1990-91 contains several measures which will cost the province of Prince Edward Island millions of dollars. The largest cut of course comes in the form of reduced transfer payments for education and health. Certainly we on Prince Edward Island, all Islanders, feel that education and health are top priorities. Transfer payments for education enable our young men and women to get a university or college
Government Orders
education, remain on the Island, and put their skills to work for the province.
This helps Prince Edward Island develop as a province, makes it more self-sufficient and of course less dependent on the federal government, but here before us we have a piece of legislation, Bill C-69, which really works in the opposite direction. It would reduce federal spending, money that goes into post-secondary education. Thus it is not contributing to the development of the future of our youth and tomorrow's leaders.
Canadians are also very proud of their health system, and rightly so. We have one of the best health care systems in the world. It is certainly a system that we do not want to lose. Yet this legislation, Bill C-69, means that Prince Edward Island will receive less money for health.
As I just mentioned, Prince Edward Islanders put great emphasis on education and health care, but we are disturbed by the record of this government. As we know, the funding formulas for education and health are based on the GNP. As the Gross National Product goes up, so does the federal funding to the provinces for education and health. That is the way it was supposed to work, at least until this government got involved.
Since the Tory government came to power in 1984 it has on three separate occasions-not just one, but three separate occasions-reduced the amount of transfer payments to the provinces for medicare, hospital services, and education.
First it reduced the Established Programs Financing funding in 1986 by 2 per cent. Then it brought in Bill C-33 wanting to reduce that funding by another 1 per cent. Now we have before us Bill C-69 with which the government wants to freeze the payments. The impact of all these cuts will mean a loss of $155 million to my province up to the year 1995.
It is plain to see that this government is simply eroding the post-education system across our country. To put things in a political perspective, the Prime Minister promised before the 1984 election: "We are committed to sustaining the current federal financial commitment. We believe that financing post-secondary education is an important priority for both levels of government".

June 11, 1990
Government Orders
That is what the Prime Minister said before the election in 1984, but actions speak louder than words. The actions of this government have certainly not been to carry through on that commitment. I say that because we have had on three occasions transfer payments cut or reduced. This is the money that goes to the provinces to pay for health, hospitals and education.
The government has now certainly abandoned the commitment that the Prime Minister talked about, as we see in this legislation before us, and as we have seen in previous legislation. Clearly, this government does not know how to determine policy in view of the future of this country.
I had the opportunity to be a member of the legislative committee which studied this bill on the day the committee heard representatives of the Canadian Federation of Students who came before the committee to tell us what they thought of this legislation. I want to quote one sentence from their brief.
The Federation shares the opinion of many in the educational
community that Bill C-69 is one of a series of cutbacks which have
resulted in the serious underfunding of our post-secondary education
system.
They went on to indicate to us in their brief just how Bill C-69 will affect the education system. They indicated to us the negative impact that will be felt across this country in our universities and colleges.
The funding of universities and colleges is not the only way that students are being hit by this government. This government has also failed to update the student loan system which has not kept up with inflation and which discriminates against part-time students.
A student advisory group was set up to provide the government with input on these student aid matters. That group was in existence for over two years before the minister finally decided to meet with it to get its input. I understand that meeting took place in March. It was a very short meeting. The students feel that that meeting was to no avail.
So what we have is a government that is really continuing to ignore the concerns of students. That seems to be the story of this government. It really fails to consult with the people who are going to be affected by these decisions.
The same thing happened with the decision to close CFB Summerside. As I mentioned earlier, the government announced this decision in its budget of 1989. Out of the blue the government announced that it was going to close CFB Summerside.
There had been no consultation with Islanders, with the people who would be affected by this decision. Obviously, there was no planning whatsoever as to what was going to happen to the economy of Summerside, Prince Edward Island after the base closed. In fact, the lack of forethought put into this dramatic decision is really frightening.
The closure of CFB Summerside will mean the loss of 1,300 jobs. The effect of this announcement was to put the economy of that whole area on hold. It left the people uncertain about their future.
I would like to outline very briefly the order of events for my colleagues here in the House today so that they have a good understanding of how the people of Summerside and area have been treated by this government since the announcement of that decision in the budget of 1989.
The announcement was made public on April 27 of that year. For an entire year the people of Summerside and the surrounding area were left in limbo, not knowing what was in store for them. The people who work at the base did not know. They still do not know whether they are going to have jobs. They do not know whether they should try to sell their houses, move to Tbronto or elsewhere to try and find a job. That still has not been cleared up.
What the federal government did in July is set up a federal task force which was headed by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. That task force was to look into the possibilities for CFB Summerside.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration visited the Island at the end of October. That was three months after the task force had been set up, and six months after the announcement that this base was going to be closed.
Another six months went by, until March 27 of this year, when the Minister of Employment and Immigration visited Summerside and announced that a development corporation would be established to take on the assets of CFB Summerside. That meant that interim
June 11, 1990

management would be appointed for the corporation to negotiate with any prospective tenants between now and 1992 when the base is to officially close.
One of the questions that Islanders are now asking is why this interim management for the corporation has not been appointed. Has it been appointed, but simply not been announced? It has been three months since the announcement. Yet we on Prince Edward Island have heard nothing.
Here again it seems the government has left everyone in limbo. It appears that there is no plan ahead at all.
The people in Summerside and area are really frustrated with this whole process. The chairman of the crisis centre in Summerside, which has been looking after the needs of those affected by the decision to close the base, said just this past weekend: "We are frustrated. We are gravely concerned. It has been 10 weeks since the announcement was made and still the interim management team is not in place".
That is how the chairman of the crisis centre feels. I think it is time that this government made some decisions and got on with it. As every day passes without interim management in place time is wasted. It is time that could have been spent in attracting tenants to the facility. I know that there have been tenants who have certainly expressed an interest.
I have a lot more to say about this situation. There was an announcement made months ago that interim management was going to be set up. We still have no information that it has been set up.
ACOA has been showing this facility to prospective tenants, but it has no authority to negotiate contracts with the tenants. In other words, there is nobody there to give any answers.
I think we need to know the answers to these questions. When will the interim management be put in place? What will be the terms of reference for this interim management? To whom will this interim management be accountable? How will it be accountable for that $900,000?
Since my time is running out, I would like to end my comments by saying that certainly Prince Edward Island wants to participate in the Confederation of Canada. We know that that means sharing the responsibilities of deficits as well as surpluses. We are certainly willing to
Government Orders
do our fair share, but this government's economic policies go far beyond being fair and equitable.
What we have is a transfer of the deficit of the federal government to the provinces. It is certainly a burden which will erode the economy of my province and the quality of life in Prince Edward Island.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: have a question, Mr. Speaker.
The hon. member discussed very succinctly the problems that are created by these cuts because they do not stop here at the federal government. We all know that the federal government is just dumping them on to the provinces and on down the line. They end up on John Q. Public's doorstep.
With regard to the cuts in post-secondary education and medicare, the moneys that the provinces must raise in order to keep up their services will eventually come from other programs that they are operating. How does the hon. member see these cuts affecting the services that the government in her home province would be witnessing? How does she see the moneys being taken from these other programs to finance post-secondary education and medicare affecting the other services that governments have to deliver?
We are not talking here just about the items mentioned in Bill C-69, the cuts in transfer payments to the provinces. We are talking about lesser services somewhere else because the difference must be made up, or the provinces in turn will have to tax the people much more heavily in order to meet their demands. How does the hon. member see this affecting the over-all picture of provincial governments?


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. It is certainly one that concerns me a great deal. In order to provide these services you have to have the money.
It is very difficult for a small province like Prince Edward Island, but what is happening under Bill C-69 is that the government is cutting back on the amount of money that it is going to give the provinces for education and health.
That means that the province either has to cut services in health or education-and that is something that all Islanders would hate to see because we consider them to be top priorities-or it would have to increase taxes. Certainly, no one wants to pay more taxes. We are taxed to the hilt now. We will have an added tax, the GST, that

June 11, 1990
Government Orders
is coming in January of 1991. The average person just cannot afford to pay any more taxes.
We come to the third option of the provincial government and, as my hon. friend alluded to, that is taking money from other departments and putting it into health and education in order to provide the same quality of service in those two areas. What might happen is that money may have to come from the Department of Agriculture, from Fisheries, Tourism or what have you. The bottom line is that, in order to provide the service, the government has to have the money. One way or another, Islanders are going to have to pay for this.
When speaking earlier, I did not have time to talk about how Bill C-69 is going to affect Prince Edward Island in terms of health care. Seventy per cent of the Established Programs Financing transfers that come to the province are for health care, which means that that is the area that stands to lose the most.
This is the area which affects the sick and the elderly and on Prince Edward Island, we have a larger number of senior citizens as a proportion of the total population than the rest of Canada. That means our health care costs are going to be high. The province does not object to this at all. We believe that seniors have contributed greatly to society and they deserve the best quality care system that Prince Edward Island can afford. As I said, however, these federal cutbacks are threatening to reduce the quality of health care that the province can afford.
In answering the question, these cutbacks may show up, not only in education and health, but they may come in agriculture, tourism, fisheries or in any of our government departments. I am very concerned about this because I think it could have a severe impact on my province.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate on Bill C-69,1 would like to draw the attention of the House to a principle that goes back to the report of the Rowell-Sirois Commission of the 1930s. It has become so fundamental to the design of the Canadian federation that, in 1982, it was expressed directly in the
Constitution. That is the principle that I would term as regional equity. It is commitment of Canadians living in more well-off provinces or regions to share their resources with less well-off regions, so that the latter may, as a minimum, enjoy the same or similar basic levels of public service without, I might add, being obliged to bear an undue burden of taxes.
It was the recognition in the early years of this century that a growing imbalance had occurred in the fiscal capacity of different provinces and regions that led to the formation of the Rowell-Sirois Commission. It was that commission's far-seeing report that began the establishment of the framework of federal-provincial fiscal arrangements that exist today.
The principle that all provinces should be able to provide their citizens with comparable levels of public services at comparable levels of taxes is the basis for the equalization payments system worked out since the 1950s. It has been supplemented by the combination of shared-cost programs and tax transfer programs, some of which were consolidated in the late seventies under the Established Programs Financing and which apply to federal transfers for health and post-secondary education, as well as the whole framework of other cost-shared programs which exist in Canada today.
This framework was supplemented in the 1960s by active programs to limit and ultimately to eliminate the problem of regional disparities, the widening of the gap in income opportunities across various regions of the country. These positive, progressive programs were introduced by Liberal governments over the years.
It is these programs and this framework of federal-provincial arrangements that are being undermined, that are under attack by this Tory government and have been since it took office in 1984. It is these same programs and the underlying principles that are under attack with Bill C-69.
One of the four components of Bill C-69, the one with the greatest fiscal impact, is the one that would alter the formula for federal payments to provinces under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-secondary Education and Health Contributions Act.
June 11, 1990

This component, which is expressed in clauses 5 and 6 of this bill, would freeze federal transfer payments to the provinces under Established Programs Financing for the next two years. With costs rising elsewhere, this actually translates into an effective cut in federal transfers to provincial governments.
In effect, along with those Canadians who, unlike its corporate friends, cannot escape this government's tax net, provincial governments are being asked to bear the burden of the belated preoccupation of the Minister of Finance with deficit reduction.
In 1990 and 1991, the total amount of these cuts across Canada will be in the order of $869 million. For the full five-year period the amount will be more than $7.3 billion. The effect of these measures on the fiscal capacity in particular of less well off provinces which the system was designed to help is being compounded by the government's high interest rate policies and the damper that this is causing on local economic activity, not to mention municipal and provincial borrowing charges.
Of course, Canadians are already bracing themselves for the impact of the GST which will be an unprecedented tax grab by the government.
The effects of cutbacks in Established Program Financing this year and in previous years has already meant provincial cutbacks in services and increases in taxes and charges to residents who can least afford to pay.
Let us take my province of Nova Scotia as an example. In his budget, released on Friday, April 27, the finance minister of Nova Scotia, Mr. Greg Kerr, reported that federal funding cutbacks for health and post-secondary education for 1990-91, alone, would cost the province of Nova Scotia $140 million.
Provincial revenues from this category which comprise about 9.3 per cent of total provincial revenues are actually expected to drop in absolute terms down from $377 million for 1988-89 to $350 million for 1990-91. Even if the provincial finance minister was a prudent manager of the provincial treasury, a drop of that magnitude in these difficult times would be tough to absorb without either losses in basic services or increases in taxes.
As we in Nova Scotia know, prudent management of provincial finances has not been a trademark of the Tory government of Nova Scotia. These are lessons it may
Government Orders
well have imparted on the federal Tory government in Ottawa since it took office.
Nova Scotia has experienced, as a result of that budget, both an increase in taxes and a reduction in services. For example, children in Nova Scotia will now be charged an additional $3 fee for dental services and seniors will now be expected to pay fees for prescription drugs under the Nova Scotia Pharmacare Plan. These are costs the Nova Scotia government is now imposing indirectly on Nova Scotians as a result of cutbacks by the federal government in its transfers to that province.
Of particular concern in my riding of Cape Breton- Highlands-Canso is the upheaval these changes have produced in the secondary education system, particularly in rural Nova Scotia. The government of Nova Scotia has cut back on funds to municipalities and schools boards across the province with the result that schools in those areas already hard hit, which are strained to the limit, over-crowded and have not received capital funds over the years, are now being asked to bear an additional strain. The result is an attitude on the part of parents, students and teachers that enough is enough. There have been demonstrations of outrage at the cutbacks to education in communities across Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso and the province of Nova Scotia.
These cuts have also produced additional tensions in the school system. In Richmond County, parents and teachers are being asked to choose either closing schools and double-grading students or busing young students long distances to school.
In other parts of the province there is a conflict emerging between French and English classes. French immersion programs and English classes are competing for dwindling funds with the result that tensions arise between students where French immersion courses are offered.
The numbers of teachers have been cut and in some cases schools have been reduced or closed. All this is an indirect result of cutbacks by the federal government in its transfer programs. The result is additional tensions in rural parts of Nova Scotia.
These cuts have also had an effect on post-secondary education. Tuition fees in Nova Scotia are already among the highest in the country. These cutbacks by the federal government will put additional burden on our universities. As my colleague mentioned earlier, student loans

June 11, 1990
Government Orders
have not kept up with the escalating costs of attending university and therefore students face more difficulty attending university.
Cut-backs in job-creation programs for students in the summer are also placing a strain on students who are seeking summer work. I am encountering students who are coming to me and saying that summer has arrived and there are no jobs available for them. These are students who contemplate going to university, who will not have access to funding, who see university costs escalating and who, as a result, are faced with the possible choice of not going to university and not acquiring the education which we, in Canada, have led people to believe is their right. At least they should have the opportunity to get such an education.
These are the kinds of direct impacts which Bill C-69 is having and will continue to have on federal, provincial and municipal services, on our education system, and on our health system across the country, particularly in areas in which the fiscal capacity, the tax base, the capacity of provinces to bear the burden of these increases is the smallest. As a result, provinces like Nova Scotia increasingly are being asked to tighten their belts and cut back on basic services which we in Canada have come to expect as a kind of right of citizenship in this country, in this day and age.
In conclusion, I want to say that I am personally opposed to this legislation, to its thrust and to the implications which these cutbacks will have, particularly in those parts of the country which need these transfers the most.
I go back to my original point, which is the withdrawal of a basic fundamental service. This goes back to Rowell-Sirois. Canadians have come to accept this commitment as a fundamental part of our citizenship, of sharing, of enabling all parts of the country to have an equitable, comparable and equal level of public services for our citizens, without having to bear an undue burden of taxes. The key participant in this program is a federal government, which is committed to ensuring that fiscal equity is maintained and is not allowed to erode as this government has allowed this program to erode and as we have seen with Bill C-69 and so many other measures
that have been introduced by this government since it has taken office.
I hope that members opposite will realize what is going on here, that they will see these measures in their broader perspective and, with the wisdom of the summer, will choose not to pass this legislation and will allow these transfer programs to be maintained so that the less well-off regions of the country can reach an equitable level of services and continue to provide for their citizens.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina -Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, I am not delighted to take part in this debate because I feel somewhat ashamed about my province and about this legislation. I want to start by pointing out that my province, with the same ideological drive as this government, is a province that deducts from welfare payments under the Canada Assistance Plan, federal benefits such as family allowances. It is the only province to do so and it makes deductions for orphans and survivor benefits. Now, that has to tell you something.
I do not blame the Government of Saskatchewan entirely for this. Because of the monetary and fiscal policies of this government, it has left provinces with little choice other than to make cutbacks. The problem is that provincial governments have made cutbacks in the wrong places. Imagine, Mr. Speaker, deducting family allowances from welfare payments and deducting payments for orphans and survivor benefits. It is un-Christian and uncivilized and immoral, if I have used enough adjectives.
The Tory government of Saskatchewan has set up a system where it decides who are the deserving and the undeserving poor. This sounds like the lords, the dukes, the kings, the queens and the princes of the Middle Ages. The government decides who are the deserving and the undeserving poor. If there is a breadwinner who will not take a job, why would you cut off the spouse and the children? Funds in Saskatchewan are being diverted from the Canada Assistance Plan to fund what is called Workfare programs. That sounds like Bill Vander Zalm of eight or 10 years ago, buy them a shovel. I do not recite this with any kind of pride, I feel some shame, because we were the province which led the way in
June 11, 1990

dealing with our poor, our unfortunate, our disabled and our sick and set an example for the entire country.
I want to say a word about the whole matter of keeping your word. Governments are no different than individuals. A person is only as good as his word. Whether you give it verbally with a handshake or whether you give it in writing, you do not change your word, unless you have negotiated a change with the person or other government to which you gave your word. If your word is no good, as far as I am concerned, you are no good as an individual. If the government's word is no good, this government is no good because previous governments, both Conservative and Liberal, gave their word under the Canada Assistance Plan, and under the funding for education and hospitalization and medicare, it gave its word.
I hope the province of British Columbia, supported by two other provinces, wins its case in the courts. I have a fond wish that this federal government would support those provinces, but then that would defeat its own case. The programs that this bill affects are the national programs, shared by federal and provincial governments, in which the federal government sets standards to apply everywhere, in rich and poor provinces as well as the middle ones. The provinces make the decisions as to what they are going to do under those programs which have been arrived at by agreement and under which governments at all levels gave their word.
Initially, in the late fifties, sixties and the early seventies under the various programs that had come in, the federal government was committed to pay half the cost as long as the provincial jurisdiction met the standards that were laid down in the national program to provide a degree of equity, fairness and co-operative federalism no matter where one lived in this country. At least, that is the way it was supposed to be, and that is the way it used to be. This bill destroys the way it is supposed to be now and the way it used to be.
When I listen to people talking about secondary education-an hon. member today made an excellent remark about what federal and provincial governments put into secondary education-it is not an expenditure. It is an investment. If one bought a blue chip stock on the stock market, it would be an investment. When the
Government Orders
students graduate, they go on to the labour market teaching in universities or whatever. They earn good incomes. If one wants to look at it strictly as a private enterpriser, the amount of taxes the government collects from them more than recovers whatever the costs were of federal and provincial contributions to their university education. In fact, not only the governments, but the country as a whole is ahead of the game.
Also, I want to say something about poverty and food banks. I am a child of the dirty thirties, if you think I might be a little childish now. I grew up in those years. I remember. What kind of a commentary is it on our country? There are more people lining up now for food banks than there were for soup kitchens in the dirty thirties. Elundreds of thousands line up every month for food banks. It amounts to one million or two million a year in a country that is wealthy. The federal funds will not keep up with what it costs. God knows most of that is handled by volunteers.
Volunteerism has always been there. However, there are costs that even the volunteers cannot handle. Imagine. We have more people lined up now in food banks- that is a nice name for what were called soup kitchens-than in the dirty thirties. Under child care, it is a choice, but what kind of a choice is this? Less spaces? Or less income assistance? Or, a combination of both? In the name of God, why would any self-respecting government with any kind of conscience resort to that? I do not understand.
When one talks about welfare payments and the government of the so-called "Devine" in Saskatchewan who would pick on orphans, widows and those who get family allowance while eligible for welfare, it has to be some kind of a sad commentary on the state of mind of a number of governments in this country. I include my own province and this Parliament.
I want to say something about universality. After 1949, not long after Louis St. Laurent became Prime Minister of Canada, old age pensions were made universal and were increased very modestly. It was no big deal in terms of the amount of money. But I will never forget when Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent publicly accepted his first old age pension cheque when he reached 65, not because he was bragging about it but to shore up the

June 11, 1990
Government Orders
whole principle of universality. I am sure he did not need the money; that was the last thing that was on his mind.
I was an avid reader of Hansard in those days. I subscribed to it. M. J. Coldwell and Stanley Knowles got up and complimented him for shoring up the principle of universality. It is a matter of right of every citizen of this country.
I just drew my first old age pension cheque. It arrived last Friday. I know I do not look a day over 29.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It arrived two weeks late, and I must have some words with the minister about that.
I take that as a matter of pride. From about 1950 or 1951, during my working years on the railroad and as party secretary in Saskatchewan, every year when I made up my income tax there was a line in there that said: "Old Age Security Fund". You paid 3 per cent or 4 per cent of your taxable income for the old age security fund. For 20-some years I paid for my old age pension, as did hundreds of thousands of Canadians. It was an extra tax.
Now when I meet the Minister of Finance in the washroom on the fifth floor, I ask him why. The only place I can meet him is in the washroom. I am not lying in wait for him. I ask him why. I paid for the damned thing. Now why do you have to claw it back? He says I am making too much money. I say fine, if you want to hit me one or two points on my income tax, which is the most fair system of all, fair ball, but don't touch the old age pension cheque, don't touch the family allowances. Those are universal, those are a matter of right which has been built into our system for the last 30 or 40 years for every Canadian citizen.
My Conservative colleagues spend a lot of time trying to get rich. The Premier of Saskatchewan hit orphans, widows and family allowance recipients. He found $300 million and some for the Cargill grain company for a fertilizer plant. I call that nothing but male bovine excrement, and you can translate that any way you like in Hansard.
I say to my colleagues on the government side that there are no pockets in the shroud and there are no cubbyholes in the coffin. All of us who can afford to pay more should be made to pay some more, and I include myself. But those of us who are in a position of fortune,
however limited it is, must pay more of a share. That means increasing income tax for high-income earners and corporations because, while we have been spending all the past months and years building a constitution, we must not build it at the expense of the poor, the deprived and those in deplorable situations through no fault of their own.
The test of how civilized and how Christian a society is, is how it treats its young, its sick and its old. This legislation flies in the face of those kinds of teachings. As Jesus said: "Inasmuch as you have done this unto the least of these you have done this unto me".
I urge government members to think about that, especially when they are having a prayer breakfast, and to apply it to this legislation and defeat it.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the last part of the hon. member's speech. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his birthday. He is certainly one of the members in this House who is well preserved. With the experience in debate that he brings, I am sure we all want to congratulate him.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I think it is pure chicanery and fluff when the hon. member says in the debate that he is willing to see the government increase income tax to the same level that we are going to tax back part or all of our old age pensions from those people who are now in a position to be able to pay.
What difference does it make if the income tax is increased or the old age pension is taxed back? If the dollars were the same, what difference would it make? I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is pure semantics.
I appreciate the hon. member being able to quote scripture. That is honourable and enviable and we hope he will continue to do so.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the difference is that when you have a universal program it is universal. You cannot be, if you will pardon the expression, half pregnant. It is either universal or it is not. If it is universal, you do not touch it with any other tax law.
That is the one side. Now let us separate it. The government needs more revenue. All the government has to do is go through its own books to see who is not paying their fair share. Damn it all, a teller working in a bank branch in Regina pays more income tax than the
June 11, 1990

bank she is working for. Don't talk to me about clawing back pensions.
I will only have three things when I am through in this place, although I am tempted to outlive my hon. friends around here. I will have my MP's pension, my Canada pension, and old age pension. That is it. I try to live up to there being no pockets in the shroud. As long as I have enough to be comfortable, to have a roof over my head, to keep my bills paid, to buiy myself and go on a holiday or two a year, what the hell more do you need? That is not living like a monk in the hills.
Surely, it is time for my hon. friend and all of us to fight this appeal to the worst in all of us, greed and selfishness. When is that going to happen? Whatever happened to the principle of being our brother's keeper? You bring in a principled program, a universal program, and you do not touch it. You leave it off the income tax rolls. You leave it off the tax form completely.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: You said to include it in income tax.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, I did not. I did not. I am sorry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. On debate, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's.


Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin -St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a few words to say on third reading of Bill C-69.1 listened with great interest to the gentleman from Regina-Lumsden who, among other things, told us that he was the recipient of his first pension cheque. There was some muttering up in this end of the Chamber, not from me I assure him, as to whether he was in some kind of conflict of interest receiving two pay cheques from the public purse, one on behalf of his job here and the other because of his age. Of course, nobody would suggest that seriously.
In responding to that point I want to say something that he had already implied, that he must have lied on the application because certainly that young fellow who just spoke is not 65 years of age.
Mr. Speaker, let me come quickly to the point. I understand you, sir, have some pressing duties elsewhere. Duty calls for you to be the umpire at a game between members of Parliament and the pages.
Government Orders


An Hon. Member:: It's already over.


Roger Simmons: It is never over until Mr. Speaker gets out there and invokes some of his rulings. If they are as good as the ones he invokes in this House, I have great fear for the pages.
I firmly believe that the proposed cuts in Established Programs Financing will have a disastrous effect on universities, colleges, hospital funding and the operation of hospitals.
"Let us not make hospitals, universities and colleges a battleground between the federal government and the provincial governments. Let us solve those problems, not on the backs of the hospitals and universities, let us solve those problems outside that arena".
Those who know the manner of my participation in the debates in this House will know that I rarely read directly from a script. I did so in the past few moments for a very particular reason. I will tell you what that reason is in a moment. Let me remind you what I have just said. I have said that I firmly believe that the cuts in the EPF funding would have disastrous effects on universities, hospitals, education generally, and so on.
I read that word for word because that conviction is mine. I am concerned that the cuts in EPF funding will do damage to the operation of hospitals, to the functioning of universities and colleges, and to the access of young Canadians in whatever province to an education beyond the secondary level. That is a conviction that I hold very strongly, and that is why I stand at this stage of the bill to protest one more time what the government is proposing to do.
I have read those words. Not only are they my conviction. They were, to be more accurate, also the conviction of the present Minister of Finance. A moment ago I read word for word what the gentleman who now occupies the post of the Minister of Finance said in this very House on March 24, 1982. Eight years ago and a bit the Minister of Finance in this government was saying exactly what I am saying here today: do not cut EPF, it will have a disastrous affect on universities, it will adversely affect hospital care. That is what the gentleman was saying eight years ago when he was sitting over here in opposition.
The first question is: Why did he change his tune? Why did he, the advocate as I am today and as I have been over the years of properly funded hospital care, of full participation by the federal government in the

June 11, 1990
Government Orders
funding of that hospital care, of adequately funded post-secondary education, and of adequate financial participation of the federal government in that post-secondary funding, change his tune on that particular issue? If we had the time we could show other inconsistencies between what the Minister of Finance said when he was in opposition and what he is perpetrating on the people of Canada at this particular time.
This bill brought in, in the guise of restraining the expenditure of government money, will indeed, as we have already said, play havoc with the lives of many people who because of the cutbacks in funding will not have as complete access to hospital care as they would have had without this cutback. It will play havoc with the lives of many young Canadians who because of these cutbacks will not have the same access to university education, community college education, or post-secondary education opportunities generally.
Let us for a moment look at the impact of some of the figures in various areas of this country. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that as a result of the actions of this Minister of Finance, this Prime Minister, and this government since they took office in 1984, the cumulative effects of the cutbacks in Established Programs Financing, and the reductions in federal transfer payments to the provinces in respect of this program amount to $684 million in the case of Newfoundland alone. That is from the time they started the cutbacks in 1986 until they run their course in 1995: $684 million. That is an awful lot of money for a small province such as Newfoundland and Labrador with a pretty limited capacity to pay and collect provincial tax revenues. At the same time it is an overwhelming burden in terms of the need to provide adequate university education and the need to provide adequate hospital care. That is $684 million less that the Newfoundland government will have received as a result of those particular cutbacks.
P.E.I, a smaller province than Newfoundland in terms of population, nevertheless will suffer a $155 million cutback over the life of the cutbacks in this bill and the bills preceding it since this government took office.
Nova Scotia will lose more than $1 billion that otherwise would have been transferred from the federal government to the provincial government in Nova Scotia so that that government could continue to meet its obligations in terms of post-secondary education and health care generally.
Often we hear the Prime Minister talk about how we are a caring society. Those are great words. It is difficult to see how that is supported by his actions as a leader of a government which is racking up new records in terms of its capacity to batter the weak, the less fortunate, and the old.
I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that after six years this government is not working. I am not saying that the government is not doing things. I am not saying that it is not busy. I am not saying that it is not trying things, but it is not functioning any more. If you back off for a moment and ask what a government ought to do, you will see that it is not doing what a government ought to be doing. It has stopped functioning as an effective government.
You can be effective without being completely popular. That is a different issue altogether, but this government is not carrying out its mandate. It is not functioning as the government of this country. This government no longer works, for a number of reasons.
First, it has lost the collective goodwill of the people. People out there do not trust this government any more. They do not believe in or give the government the benefit of the doubt any more. Normally in polls asking what kind of job the Prime Minister is doing or what kind of job the government is doing on a given day, you will find a fairly large pool of people who are prepared to give the government the benefit of the doubt. They are prepared to say that the government or the Prime Minister is doing a reasonable job, and so on and so forth.
Now, almost for the first time I believe in Canadian history, we are finding, and to a degree not experienced in other countries like Britain, Japan, West Germany, or the United States in similar polls, an overwhelming rejection of the Prime Minister and of the government of the day. The polls are absolutely astounding. From my standpoint in opposition it is encouraging, but in over-all terms these are absolutely astounding results, watershed
June 11, 1990

results, Rubicon results, in terms of what the country is saying about the performance of this Prime Minister and the performance of this government.
This government has lost the goodwill of the people of Canada. This government has certainly lost the goodwill of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, the province that I have the honour to represent in this Chamber.
This government has also stopped listening to the people and the people sense it. What more graphic example could you have of that than what is happening in terms of the proposed goods and services tax. The government has been told by 85 per cent of the Canadian people, through a succession of polls, that the people of Canada do not like, do not want, do not believe in, or do not think they need the goods and services tax. Yet the government insists on ramming it down the throats of Canadians. This government is not listening to Canadians any more.
Third, it must be clearly evident to most Canadians now that this government is riding roughshod over the people of Canada. Many examples could be drawn of how this government and how the Prime Minister, in particular, ride roughshod over people's wishes, and how the Prime Minister takes the view that he is right all the time, whether it is on the cutbacks in Established Programs Financing, on the goods and services tax, on the closure of rural post offices, or on the abandonment of railway lines.
One of the more recent and more despicable examples occurred on national television in the last few days. I refer to the incident during the course of the Meech Lake coverage on Saturday morning, the case, as the press were calling it, of the missing clause. I watched the Prime Minister explain for about 10 minutes in the most complete detail. This was the case of the clause that was absent from the draft agreement Saturday morning, the clause that Mr. Wells, the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, wanted to have included in the document. That it was omitted was a matter of some concern for Mr. Wells.
The Prime Minister showed up and, in the scrum outside the Conference Centre, assured everybody that it was an innocent mistake and that if the press would stop asking him questions he would rush off inside the
Government Orders
door and fix it all. He said that it was just a typographical error, that some typist had slipped up and forgotten to include the paragraph that Mr. Wells wanted.
We all know, as subsequent events have shown us, that that is not what happened at all. We all know that it was a very deliberate act to leave that out. We all have it on the authority of a number of people that an instruction was given that that paragraph not be put in there. Mr. Wells is a premier representing a province of this country equal, I was led to believe, with every other province in this country. One would wonder in terms of the treatment we have gotten the last few days, but that is another issue.
Not only was an instruction given to delete the paragraph, but the Prime Minister stood there publicly, after having given that instruction, and said that it was not so. He assured us all that it was a completely innocent oversight that he was going fix as soon as he got inside the door.
We saw that kind of lie, that kind of untruth being played out on national television by the master of sleight of hand. I am not saying the Prime Minister had to accommodate every concern. I have some feelings on that, and they are not different from those of Mr. Wells.
However, to stick with the example, whether or not all the concerns should have been accommodated, the very least you would expect from the Prime Minister is some candour on the issue, either to say nothing or to tell it as it is instead of standing there for 10 minutes reading into the record what in terms of subsequent events was shown to be a clear falsehood, an absolute untruth, with no basis in truth at all. His assertion that it was an innocent typographical error, that somebody erred in the typing pool and left out the paragraph and he was going to fix it as soon as he got in the door, was wrong. He knew at the time he said it that it was wrong, blatantly wrong.
When Canadians have come to expect that kind of duplicity, that kind of double-talk from the Prime Minister of this country, is it any wonder that I can read into the record what the Minister of Finance said a few years ago and then demonstrate to you by holding up Bill C-69 that now the Minister of Finance, with the acquiescence of the Prime Minister, is doing the exact opposite?

June 11, 1990
Government Orders
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, because I understand my time is just about up, I submit that it is unconscionable that we have this piece of legislation in front of us. However, it is not at all surprising when you realize that the artists who perpetrate this are the same people who put together that constitutional circus last week. The sleight of hand artists do one thing and say something else, tell you one thing while they are doing something quite different. They told us in opposition that Established Programs Financing would be protected for people who need health care and post-secondary education, but when they came into office, they did the same despicable kind of dancing around on money matters as they did last week on the Constitution.
On both matters, on financial matters in terms of this bill, and on constitutional matters, their duplicity will come back to haunt them. Not only will it come back to haunt them, unfortunately, it will also come back to haunt the country. That is the sadness of it, that a lot of people who are not responsible for this duplicity will have to pay for it in spades both constitutionally in the one case, and financially in the present case down the road.
There is so much more I could say but I see from your signal, Sir, that my time is up.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On questions or comments, the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing- Pembroke.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned his own province and how this bill affects it. He discussed medicare and post-secondary education at some length. However, what does he see down the road as the real effects of these cuts? It is all right for the government members to get up and say that they have got to cut the deficit. We all know that. However, they are really doing it on the backs of the other governments in this country, and we have to include municipal governments because the buck will eventually stop there too.
What effect does the hon. member really see these cuts having on provincial government administrations? How does he see them affecting the division of the tax dollars between federal and provincial governments in Canada?
Another member talked about the Rowell-Sirois report, one of the most thorough studies of financial divisions and jurisdiction ever held in this country. How does he envision the available tax dollars being divided in the future if the federal government is going to continue to slough off what is their burden onto the shoulders of the provinces, the municipalities and John Q. Public in this country?


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague and friend for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke for the question. I say to him, do not fall for that line about cutting the deficit, and I know he does not fall for it. I know he put it to me as a preamble to his question. But I say to the Canadian people and to myself, let us not fall for this absolute nonsense about cutting the deficit.
If cutting the deficit was such a priority, then let me use another cliche. I always believed and was taught that charity begins at home. If there is to be some effort in cutting the deficit, why is it that we see the government, the Prime Minister, and the ministers still living very high on the hog. This burning desire to cut the deficit does not seem to stop the Prime Minister when it comes time to fly the limousines down to Costa Rica or to generally live high on the hog here in Canada.
We can take examples that in dollar terms do not mean a lot to this government in terms of total budget, but they mean a lot to the people who are living out there on welfare and whose welfare is going to be further threatened by this particular bill.
So, I cannot get very excited, Mr. Speaker, about cutting the deficit when I watch the way this government operates.
Let me come to the second part of the question of my friend, the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. He asked, what do I see down the road as the effects. I say to him that we are seeing the effects. Already, I am talking to young people who cannot go to university. Already, I am talking to provincial finance ministers. I talked to the one from my own province in the last few hours who tells me that it is becoming very difficult to make ends meet, to meet the financial needs of the university and the hospitals in Newfoundland and Labrador because of the effects of this bill. The cumulative effect of this bill and the others before it since this government came to office is $684 million. That is $684 million less that Newfoundland is going to get to pay its
June 11, 1990

medical bills, its university bills than it would have received if this bill was not before us.
Provincial governments are going to have to either cut back services or raise their taxes. A larger segment of the total revenue is going to have to come from provincial tax dollars. There again, if there were time and I were to digress away from this issue, I could draw a parallel between what was happening last week in the constitutional talks and the way they were being manipulated and what is happening here. It is the same whole mug's game where you shift the blame all the time to somebody else.
In the case of this particular bill cutting back expenses, funding for university and health costs expenditures, the government is shifting the blame to the provincial treasurers, the provincial finance ministers, the provincial premiers so they will be blamed if they raise provincial taxes, if they cut back on health care and on university education programs.
I say to my friend from Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke, that is the sadness of it all. The people most affected, the elderly, university students, the people on social assistance, are having to put up with this continuing smoke and mirrors game by this government that smiles while putting the knife in all the time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. On debate, the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, this bill is so wide ranging that one can talk about almost anything. I would like to first outline the specifics of the bill. What Bill C-69 actually does is freeze federal transfer payments for the next two years to the provinces under the Established Programs Financing, which is another term for transfer payments with regard to post-secondary education and health care. It limits the increase for federal transfer payments to Ontario, to British Columbia and Alberta under the Canada Assistance Plan.
It is eliminating the Canadian Exploration Incentives Program which is hurting small exploration companies. It freezes public utilities income tax transfers over the next two years.
Government Orders
The budget cutbacks alone to these four programs amount to $1 billion in 1990-91, $1.8 billion in 1991-92, and a total of $8.4 billion over the next five fiscal years that the provinces are not going to get. The cutbacks to transfer payments to all provinces for these essential areas of post-secondary education and health care, and cutbacks to transfer payments to Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia under the Canada Assistance Plan, will force the provinces to simply increase taxes.
This government is not cutting the deficit, as my hon. friend just said a while ago. It is transferring the debt to the provinces, or passing the buck, as it is called. As a result of this bill passing, and the cutting of transfer payments to the provinces by this government, the provinces are going to have to collect another $576 per taxpayer in their provinces over the next five years. When Canadians see their provincial taxes go up, they are actually paying the taxes for this Minister of Finance who is passing the buck to the provinces.
This is not the first time it has happened. It is the third time that the Conservative government has attacked the Established Programs Financing or transfer payments since 1986. Cumulatively, these transfer cutbacks between 1986 and 1987 right up to 1994 and 1995 will amount to the astronomical sum of $31.1 billion, of which $22.2 billion should have been allocated to health care and $8.9 billion to post-secondary education.
I just want to repeat in particular, the figure of $22.2 billion that should be allocated to health care and is not going to be by this federal government. Is it any wonder that the people out there are worried about the medicare program across Canada because the federal government is backing away from its share of the contribution and indeed its responsibility. Then they say the people who talk about it are fear-mongering. What a farce.
An interesting conversation took place today between me and the Minister of Finance across the floor. I like to keep reminding the Minister of Finance that in a speech in Toronto in August, 1984 he said that he would certainly not attack the deficit by increasing taxes but would rather do it by cutting government programs.

June 11, 1990
Government Orders
Not only has he increased taxes 31 times, and the GST will be the thirty-second time, he has certainly kept his promise about cutting programs. Right here, we see where he is cutting these transfer payments to the provinces by over $31 billion in a five-year period. They are not just programs, they are institutions of this country, namely, medicare and post-secondary education.
He has cut the other government programs with a vengeance. The national debt is still growing. The sad part is that he is not making any gains because the national debt of the country has more than doubled since the government took office. The simplicity of the economic measures promised by the Minister of Finance in 1984 can simply be classified as schoolboy rhetoric.
If the provinces decide not to increase taxes, they will be forced to make cutbacks. In turn, hospitals will have to close beds, limit costly operations or find other reductions. Students will have to face higher tuition fees, overcrowded classes or other cost-cutting measures.
On March 24, 1982, the Minister of Finance had the following to say in the House, and I do not think this quote can be repeated often enough:
Let us not make hospitals, universities and colleges a battleground
between the federal government and the provincial governments.
Let us solve those problems, not on the backs of hospitals and
universities; let us solve those problems outside of that arena.
Here he has brought his very solution to it and he has brought those things right back into the arena. In Bill C-69 that is before the House today, he is doing the very things he suggested should not be done when he was sitting in the opposition in the House of Commons.
Today, he said that I was living in the past. When the Minister of Finance makes a promise or a commitment, if one reminds him of it, one is living in the past. I brought him a little more up to date and mentioned his recent statement with regard to post-secondary education and medicare. It seems that when the Minister of Finance makes commitments and one reminds him of them, one is talking about the past. I wonder what he would say if we criticized him for something we thought he was going to say in a year from now. I do not think
that would be very good logic to follow. The Minister of Finance always has a way to slough these things off.
The reason for the Minister of Finance said that I was living in the past must be due to the fact that the minister has been making commitments for so long, that to him these commitments have become traditional, rather than becoming something new. As soon as he says them, they are old hat.
The real fact that we see in this bill today is the fact that the provinces are being dumped on by the federal government of Canada. The Minister of State for Privatization, when he was once before a legislative committee I was a member of, complained because the provinces had little or no debt and they should have. He was ready to dump on them then, and he certainly has since.
It is very important at this stage to come out simply with the real challenge about this. It was mentioned in the House today that the Province of Ontario had a balanced budget this year. Because the provinces have no debt, in the eyes of the federal government, that seems to be a sin. Because they have a balanced budget, it wants to dump more on to them.
When these transfer cuts were announced, a few days after the budget was tabled British Columbia and Ontario announced that they would challenge the cuts to the Canada Assistance Program in court. This legal battle could delay implementation of this measure until the court makes its decision. Alberta supports the action taken by these two provinces.
The contesting provinces believe that the Canada Assistance Plan can only be modified after a year's notice and with provincial consent. After all, the province must be given some notice if it is going to get its financial house in order, instead of having this cut thrust on it overnight.
Also, the government did not seek consent of the provinces, so neither one of these conditions have been met. Right now the provinces look as if they are in a very good position.
With respect to post-secondary education, the Prime Minister betrayed, once again, his own promise to have first-class education for our youth and, in so doing, made a mockery of the national task force on education that he had created. On August 25, 1989, the Prime Minister stated: "This government will carry its fair share of the
June 11, 1990

burden to ensure that all young Canadians receive a first-class education as they confront a world-class challenge".
One cannot challenge someone to do something one minute and pull the rug out from underneath them then next.
When the provinces are called upon to make up the difference in financing important items such as post-secondary education and medicare, the money must come from somewhere else. There is a very important part to that with respect to the Canada Assistance Plan. Cuts in assistance to the poorest in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia contradict the government's commitment to "come to the aid of those who are in need".
The poor in these three provinces are just as poor as those in any other of the provinces. Moreover, British Columbia and Ontario, supported by Alberta, are carrying on their court case challenging that budgetary item right now as we study this bill.
These are great words by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, but there is no commitment. The additional financial pressure that will be brought to bear on provincial governments will affect other services provided by provincial governments such as the building of roads and forestry. Agriculture and forestry are industries that need a lot of help today, and energy projects are very expensive, as we know.
We have a major issue here in eastern Ontario with regard to Elighway 17, travelling up the Ottawa Valley from Ottawa. There have been a lot of unfortunate deaths on that highway, but they have not all been attributable, by any means, to the highway itself.
I would like to make a very important point. The amount of money that Ontario lost when the federal government cut its transfer payments this year would have practically built that entire highway. The province has announced the building of Highway 316 from the 401 into Ottawa, four lanes. After 123 years of Confederation, it will be the first four-lane highway into the National Capital from southern Ontario. It has announced the continuation of building of a four-lane highway from the end of the Queensway to Arnprior. The highway continues from there is for another 75 miles or so. That will come, but I want to point out that financial stress has been placed on the province of
Government Orders
Ontario by the lack of transfer payments from the federal government and indeed through Bill C-69 today.
It is very important to note that the province of Ontario, which faces drastic cuts in transfer payments, is now faced with major construction items in eastern Ontario to be done over a very short time-frame. There were 42 years of Conservative government at Queen's Park in Ontario and eastern Ontario was neglected. Today, the province of Ontario under Premier Peterson is faced with catch-up programs because of neglect during those more than four decades of Conservative government in Ontario.
There were times when 14 out of 15 members of the Ontario legislature from eastern Ontario were Conservative members. So there is no penalty for not voting the right way. They voted for the government and still did not get those improvements and eastern Ontario was neglected.
When the Hon. Joe Greene was Minister of Agriculture and later Minister of Energy, he called Highway 17 the Ottawa Valley's goat trail in a speech in the House of Commons more than 25 years ago. If he were here today, he would be very interested in the debate that is going on on that issue now.
I am simply saying that it is unfair to call upon the present provincial government under Premier Peterson to do in a half dozen years what the previous Conservative government failed to do in 42 years.
As a finale, I mention that I asked a question previously about the Rowell-Sirois report and the division of finances between the provinces and the federal government. I am absolutely convinced that, with the way we are going, we will need another in-depth study of the financial structure of the country.
The changes in transfer payments are undermining the basic financial arrangements of the country that have been in place for years. They have served the country well at both federal and provincial levels and now that they are changing, there will be some bad effects and things will certainly be mismanaged as a result of that.
No one wants to see another great depression such as the one in the thirties that brought about that report. It affected families. People could not even pay their taxes. It was a lost generation. Everybody has a right to fair education and to medicare in the country.

June 11, 1990
Government Orders
I can only say in conclusion that the government is going to have to change its mind. It is going to have to start living up to the basic agreements under the Rowell-Sirois Commission report and get back on track and pay proper transfer payments to the provinces if we are going to maintain any standard of living in that regard.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina -Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, my original intention was not to enter into this debate, but when I realized that Bill C-69 is the largest cut to social programs in Canadian history-the largest cut that slashes health, education, welfare, child care and transition shelter spending-I would be negligent in my duty as a member of Parliament not to lend my voice in protest at the actions of the government.
Is it not ironic today that during Question Period we heard the government defend major increases to its top bureaucrats, increases of $40,000, $50,000, $60,000, and I heard in one case of over $100,000. The justification here is that we have got to make these top management positions competitive with the private sector.
Indeed, in the last number of years we have seen tremendous increases in the salaries and the dividends that the top of the corporate sector has received. On the same day that the government can justify these tremendous increases on the upper income scale, it is introducing Bill C-69 that would cap the transfer of the assistance payments from the federal government to three provincial governments, the governments of Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia. Perhaps those are the provinces where the poor need assistance the most, because the cost of living and the cost of housing, particularly in cities like Toronto and Vancouver, have made it almost impossible for poor people to continue to live in those urban centres.
On the same day that the government attempts to justify these tremendous increases to its top echelons in the Crown corporations and departments, it attempts to move through a bill that cuts back on programs like medicare and post-secondary education. As a country we are in a period of tremendous economic transition, much of it brought about by things like the free trade agreement. This brings about tremendous human dislocation. People who have worked in their jobs, developed a career, developed skills, all at once find that those skills are no longer needed. It is a time when those people need some support, for education, for retraining and as a
social net. This government has been attacking that social net. On the one hand, it has created a greater need for a social net, and on the other hand, it is yanking that social net away. I do not believe the people of Canada will endorse and support this.
Of course, we hear the government justify this because it says it is fighting the deficit. I have no problems with that. Let us not forget that it is not the poor of this country who are to be blamed for the deficit. They did not create the deficit, and the victims should not be attacked. We have heard Tories say that we are living beyond our means and that we should tighten our belts.
Looking at Canada's record, compared to the other industrialized countries, such as OECD countries, what we spend on social programs as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product is the second lowest. We spend less on social programs, on health, education, welfare, family allowance, medicare, you name it, as a percentage of our Gross Domestic Product than Holland, Italy, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Great Britain or Ireland. Only the United States, as a percentage of its Gross Domestic Product, spends less on social programs than we do.
Do not tell me it is the poor and the social programs of this country which have created the deficit. Do not blame the victims. This is the traditional Tory line of blaming the victims, and saying that the people on welfare have got it too good, that our medicare program is too rich, that our child care program is just too expensive and too costly. If the people in Germany, Holland, Italy, Sweden, and Denmark are able to afford programs that ensure that there is decent medicare, that there is child care, that the elderly are taken care of in dignity, that there is a proper education system, particularly in terms of retraining and higher education, then in heaven's name, I cannot understand why a country as rich as Canada, with our tremendous resources, with our sparse population is not able to afford the same.
I want to touch particularly on the cutbacks to the EPF program and the effect that this will have on higher education. Earlier this spring, I visited several universities around the country. When I visited Carleton University, here in Ottawa, I was told by students that at times there is a five or six day waiting period for a particular book at the library and even then, when they get there they might only be able to have this resource book for maybe an hour or two, because the university cannot
June 11, 1990

afford to replenish its library with the needed research material. I visited the university at the Lakehead, where I was told that the plant and equipment in their research facilities had been bought at the beginning of this decade and now need to be improved. Repairs are needed and equipment needs to be updated and they cannot afford it. Mr. Speaker, I visited the university at Lethbridge and the university in Calgary and I heard about the same problems, that the tuition fees are being increased, the size of classroom is being expanded and the ratio between the instructor and the number of students is increasing. The same problem exists at the university in my home city of Regina, a university that I attended. I was president of the students' council in the 1960s. At that time we talked about a community of scholars.
I walk in those university halls today and it is not a community of scholars. It is a McDonald's fast food chain. That is what higher education has come to in this country, a fast food outlet with huge lecture halls and professors with whom you will never have an opportunity to have an intellectual discussion or discourse. Forget about the notion of the community of scholars.
Our universities are becoming second rate. They do not have the research equipment in order to help graduate first-rate researchers. That is what this country needs. This is what we need if we are going to grow into the 21st century.
We need scientists. Our young people need a world first-class education. Unfortunately we are becoming a second-rate nation because our education system is becoming second rate.
That is the saddest part of all. We are denying and robbing our young people of the possibility of being able to get good jobs because they are not getting a first-class education. I find that so sad, Mr. Speaker.
What this government is doing with Bill C-69 is attacking the poor through such measures as medicare and post-secondary education, measures that help the
Government Orders
young, the old, the aged and the sick. Now they must bear the burden of fighting the deficit.
Meanwhile the Governor of the Bank of Canada and his staff and minions are able to get large increases in their pay. The upper echelon of the Public Service is getting good, fat bonuses.


An Hon. Member:: It is gross.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my colleague says it is gross. It is gross that on the one hand we have the attack by the Tory government on the poor, and on the other hand it is helping the well-to-do. What a mix of priorities.
I think we all feel ashamed to be Canadians when we begin to develop a record like this. It is denying our future; it is denying those who are less fortunate than ourselves in our society; it is resulting in a less caring society and so therefore a less civilized society, all in a country so rich with resources and wealth.
Those are the comments I wish to make in this debate. I join with my colleagues in protesting and speaking against an act which is the largest cutback in social programs in the history of this country.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a couple of minutes to commend my colleague from Regina for a very eloquent speech, commenting on Bill C-69.
This legislation in a very fundamental way will change the social contract of this country. These are changes that this Conservative government has embarked upon some time ago.
We remember all too well the promises the Prime Minister made that social programs were to be a sacred trust. We also remember that this same government, this same Prime Minister who promised that social programs would be a sacred trust, has cut back on benefits to the elderly, cut back on family allowances, and has cut back on unemployment insurance benefits.
As well, we know that the provisions of this government's so-called restraint-obviously there is no restraint for senior civil servants in this government-has frozen contributions for legal aid, has cut in real terms programs for young offenders, and we know they have cut funding for social housing in this country as well.

June 11, 1990
Government Orders
The effect of Bill C-69 is particularly serious in my province of British Columbia. As we know, it has imposed a cap on transfers under the Canada Assistance Plan of 5 per cent per year in the provinces of Ontario, Alberta, and my own province of British Columbia.
The combined effects of Bill C-96, the budget, and Bill C-33 will mean for British Columbia that up until 1995 we will have lost, in real terms, over $3 billion which would otherwise be directed to the province of British Columbia. That will be in the area of health care, in post-secondary education, and in a number of other important areas. All these areas under the Vander Zalm Social Credit Government are already reeling because of devastating cutbacks.
With regard to health care, we have seen people who are on waiting lists for heart surgery actually dying because of the heartlessness of the Vander Zalm Social Credit Government, now aided and abetted by the Conservatives.
We have seen devastating cuts in post-secondary education in my own constituency in Simon Fraser University and the B.C. Institute of Technology. Both of them are suffering from crowding, cutbacks in resources for libraries and research, and all the other areas that my colleague from Regina has pointed out so eloquently. We know as well that in terms of the health care effects of Bill C-69 this has dealt a very serious blow to the Canada Health Act. The executive director of the nurses' association has said that the Minister of Finance has just sounded a death knell to the Canada Health Act. As my colleague has indicated, and I see the Speaker signalling that I should wrap up my comments, this bill will attack the people who are already the poorest in our country.
I want to ask my colleague if he would like to comment briefly with respect to the impact that this bill will have, particularly on the poor in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta where after all almost half the recipients of the Canada Assistance Plan are located. Many aboriginal people are already struggling in devastating poverty, a condition that has been described as a national shame by the chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I wonder if my very distinguished colleague could comment on this point.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed it gives me pleasure to respond to my colleague's question.
I suspect the best way of describing the results of these measures that the government has taken on the poor is to say that it is sentencing the poor to deeper poverty. It is affecting, in particular, poor people in metropolitan areas like Vancouver and Toronto and like Edmonton and Calgary as well where the price of housing increased significantly in the last number of years and where to pay the rent now has become a substantial part of people's incomes. Certainly the people in lower income groups have not seen their wages rise the way the cost of living has risen for them.
I remember one case of a person I know quite well who lives in the city of Vancouver. She is a single parent, works in a restaurant, and has some cooking abilities. She clears around $1,200 to $1,300 a month. She spends $450 of that on rent and $450 on day care. That amounts to $900, which leaves her about $400 to pay for her transportation, food, and all the other necessities in life. This is a hard working person who is trying to keep off the welfare roles and who wants to live an active and productive life. It is not easy for people in that situation. In fact it is darn hard. I wish the government would show some consideration and heart for these people, but it does not do so. Its fixation on the deficit is such that it is willing to inflict greater hardships on our poor people in order to solve the problem and the economic mess that it has created. I find that unconscionable.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, just a couple of words in the dying moments of this debate.
The bill before the House says in its title "restraint of government expenditures". The very areas that it restrains government expenditures in are in the areas of health and education. If there were two areas that one could come up with in which government should not restrain its spending, it would have to be in health and education. Those are the two main, basic areas. They are the two areas in which we need more expenditures, health and education.
Today, in the federal riding of Gander-Grand Falls we have to send people to Halifax, Nova Scotia, to receive certain types of medical treatment not available in the province of Newfoundland. I am referring to the fact that the only litho triptic machine in Atlantic
June 11, 1990

Canada is in a hospital in Halifax, Nova Scotia. That is the only one of which I know.
Four hundred and fifty Newfoundlanders a year get on a plane and go from one of our airports in their local community and travel all the way to Halifax, Nova Scotia, to wait in line for a relatively uncomplicated procedure that was invented about 10 years ago. There are machines that are perfected that cost around $2 million. When one talks about the cost of hospital machines one has to keep in mind that the major cost is in actually operating it sometimes.
There are 450 people a year who have to go to another province to receive treatment. The cost is very great to the provincial treasury, but it is greater to the people who have to make that journey. To modernize at a time when more expenditures are needed, when provincial governments are struggling to keep up-to-date with their machinery in hospitals, the federal government turns around and announces that it is cutting its money for the operation of hospitals. What used to be called the Hospital Insurance and Diagnostic Care Act was changed in 1977 and is now called block funding.
As well, a major problem with a student going to Memorial University in Newfoundland is this. Can the student take the course that he or she needs to take in order to go to a professional school? In other words, you go into someone's house and ask: "How is your son or daughter doing"? The mother looks up and says: "Well, not too bad, but they can't seem to be able to take the courses they need in order to get the degree or in order to go on to a professional school". Just imagine, in this day and age, a student registered in the university, paid the tuition and cannot do the courses they need to do because there are not enough places.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Shame.


George Baker: Just imagine the major problems of a student going to university today .


Simon Leendert de Jong: It is shameful.


George Baker: At a time when that is happening, what does the federal government do? It turns around and cuts transfer payments for post-secondary education to the provinces.
Government Orders
I suppose it would be bad enough if we could make up for it on the provincial end. If you cut $684 million in transfers from the budget of the province of Newfoundland from 1986 to 1995, if the federal government were doing something that would make up for the loss, then fine and dandy, we would end up square and would at least be able to progress.
Speaking of the riding of Gander-Grand Falls, we just had a paper mill close because the company is building a new one in Alabama. Another one is in Venezuela on the Oronoco River.


An Hon. Member:: With faster growing trees.


George Baker: Yes, faster growing trees, cheaper labour, encouragement of the federal Government of Canada to invest in the United States, invest in other parts of the world at a time when we face cuts in these areas, when industries are closing, on the encouragement of the Government of Canada, increasing their business in the United States, the Government of Canada turns around and actually issue up to 58 factoiy freezer trawler licences for foreign nations to fish off our coast.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Who speaks for Canada?


George Baker: They are licensed inside the 200-mile zone. If you were to say that is $1 a pound for every pound of fish they caught, on last year's figures that would be $1 billion.
If we were to tell the Soviet Union, Cuba, Norway, and all the foreign nations and all of these people that we want to go over there and fish off their coasts, we would be blown out of the water.
The Government of Canada has just increased their licences. For the first time in our history we have mackerel being caught off the coast of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and in the Cabot Strait. The government just gave out licences last week to the U.S.S.R. to fish off Labrador and northern Newfoundland to within 12 miles of the coast. The point is if you made it up on a dollar-per-pound basis, that would be $1 billion and Newfoundland could build hospitals and get its litho triptic machines. But, we do not see any of that. We see just the reverse happening.
All in all, this bill should really be defeated by the House of Commons. It should be thrown in the ashcan of history. It does not deserve to be before the House at

Adjournment Debate
this time or at any other time and we hope that government members will vote against it.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the motion standing in the name of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) I have been requested by a representative of the chief government Whip to defer the division until a later time.
Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until tomorrow at 6 p.m. at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-THnity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on this occasion to discuss a question I asked in the House of Commons on April 3. The question was directed to the Minister of Fisheries.
My concern was that in view of the extraordinary gap in the surveillance and control mechanism off Canada's coastline, the longest in the world, and particularly in light of Recommendation 22 of the Harris Report, which talked about additional resources to undertake the task of surveillance and control, particularly in fisheries surveillance, I asked the minister to inform the House what plans he had to redress this well known and serious deficiency.
Either the minister misunderstood my question or he chose to answer one particular portion of it because, in fact, he did discuss one aspect but it was the aspect of the recent contract that had been signed. That was with Provincial Airways in Newfoundland for the two King Air 200 Beechcraft aircraft that were going to carry out their surveillance in lieu of the trackers. I think the contracts were to the tune of $28 million. I was delighted to hear that but I had already known that. In fact, let me read what Recommendation 22 of the Harris Report says: "The Government of Canada should undertake the provision of additional patrol vessels" and I stress patrol vessels, "for offshore surveillance to provide adequate on-site action in respect of violations reported by aircraft or by observers".
My concern is essentially for the vessels, which is a follow-up to any surveillance that may be done. Surveillance alone is not good. The business is surveillance and control, if you are interested in controlling your fisheries areas.
Since the mid-seventies off the east coast of Newfoundland, there has been a tremendous change in the pace in the fisheries. There have been more people involved, there have been more foreigners, more species being fished, better technology and larger ships going out to a much greater distance than had taken place in the mid-seventies.
Before I go any further, I would make the statement that it would be very hard to deny that the surveillance and control activities that we have now are probably less than we had in 1975, with a tremendous magnitude increase in the fisheries that are taking place.
June 11, 1990

When we look at surveillance and control in Canada, there are really three aspects of this. Right now, the offshore patrols are a combination of air surveillance, ship patrols and observers that we place aboard most of the foreign vessels out to the 200-mile limit. Let's forget about the observers. I will not talk about them any more this evening. I would like to concentrate on air patrols in a general sense.
Canada has the world's largest coastline, 60,000 coastline miles. To patrol that, we have a total of 18 Aurora aircraft; we used to have 25 or 26 trackers but they will eventually be gone. To my knowledge, in the east coast, we have recently contracted for two Beechcraft King Air 200s, which granted us a very effective aircraft with the new Litton radar. I believe there is one more in the making. That is 18, 19, 20, or 21 aircraft, if you count them. The 18 Aurora are long-range maritime patrol. The coastline is 60,000 linear miles.
The Netherlands has a coastline of 228 miles. It uses roughly the same number, 13 maritime patrol aircraft.
Japan has 5,000 linear miles of coastline. It has presently 130 maritime patrol aircraft and is about to order another 100.
If you want to put this another way, Mr. Speaker, Japan with one-tenth the coastline has 10 times the patrol effort off its coast, and Holland has roughly the same number of maritime patrol aircraft to patrol one-two hundred and fiftieth of the coastline.
Mr. Speaker, I think you can see the comparisons there which indicate that either these two countries are awfully high or we are awfully low. I would suggest that it is the latter.
I want now to look at the specific recommendation related to the patrol vessels. As I stand here tonight there are only patrols vessels off Canada's east coast. The two vessels are the William Colley and the Cape Roger. I believe the Cape Roger is in refit now. Statistically there is really one and a half patrol vessels to patrol the east coast of Canada and the south coast of Newfoundland.
When you look at the area that is covered, Mr. Speaker, and just picture now the south coast of Newfoundland, all the area of the northern cod out around the Grand Banks and way up as far north as Baffin
Adjournment Debate
Island, there are just two vessels. To say that that is inadequate is a gross understatement. In fact to say it is a token is ludicrous. It is nothing more than a joke. It is a joke. The brunt of the joke is Newfoundlanders and Atlantic Canadians. Out of the two patrol vessels one is stationed on the Banks pretty well all the time, and the other one therefore has to patrol that vast area.
Mr. Speaker, as anybody with a maritime background would tell you, that is a joke. That is the best way I can put it.
The point of this whole business is that surveillance and control is a team effort. The aircraft locate and identify, but they are incapable of actually taking any action that would force the proper follow-on from these illegal pursuits.
Aircraft certainly has some advantages, that is, they cannot be rammed by an aggressive trawler, as the Saguenay was rammed by the Concordia just before Christmas last year. I have to stress that you can locate as many fishermen as you can, but unless there is a surface vessel to go out and actually board and examine the catch, and unless there is enough aircraft to continue with continuous patrol, then you are in serious trouble.
I would like to make a suggestion. We have 21 trawlers now that seem to be of surplus use, I guess largely because of the reduction in the effort of the fisheries which has been a forced effort due to the dismal state of our stocks. These 21 fisheries vessels include the six mid-distance fleet off Newfoundland that have been decommissioned.
I would like to suggest that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the Minister of National Defence, and perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs get together to see if somehow we can acquire these vessels. We can lease them, rent them, or perhaps even buy them. We can man them with qualified skippers, maybe some of the skippers from these trawlers who are out of work. We might even consider putting them in the naval reserve and having them operate under the Maritime Coastal Defence Organization that was recently formed in Maritime Command.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure you that if this is not a no cost it is certainly a low cost recommendation that I believe-in fact I am seriously convinced-should have further investigation. I leave that to the goodwill and

Adjournment Debate
imagination of the Ministers of National Defence and Fisheries and Oceans.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Forestry)):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on behalf of the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Valcourt) and remind the hon. member that recommendation 22 of the Harris Report suggests that the Government of Canada make arrangements to increase the number of ships assigned to maritime surveillance.
The purpose is to provide sufficient resources to be able to follow up on violations sighted by airplanes or pointed out by observers. This measure will also make it possible to combine the use of helicopters and smaller patrol boats for surveillance of coastal fisheries. Similar recommendations were made by the Scotia-Fundy task force on the ground fishery. In the course of departmental consultations throughout Atlantic Canada, the industry, fishermens' organizations and provincial governments also pointed out the need for more efficient and effective surveillance, both inside and outside the Canadian zone.
More efficient and effective surveillance and enforcement of the regulations will require full integration of all aspects of the surveillance program, including air surveillance, coverage by observers, surveillance at sea and ashore, and monitoring of quotas.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans recently awarded a contract to Airways Limited for 3,815 hours of air surveillance of the deep sea fisheries in 1990-91. This represents more than twice the number of hours of surveillance provided by the trackers of the Department of National Defence in recent years. The new surveillance which will be in addition to 420 hours of flying by the Aurora aircraft provided free of charge by DND, represents a substantial upgrading of our deep sea fisheries air surveillance program off the Atlantic coast.
The minister realizes that effective management of fish stocks means that we must have appropriate and adequate air surveillance and control. To this end, the department will monitor and assess all components of its
surveillance and regulatory programs to determine the levels of air, sea and land patrols to be maintained to guarantee effective management of Canada's fish stocks.


FORESTRY
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley
Valley): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today in the House to follow up on a question I put to the Minister of the Environment, which in his absence ended up being answered by the Minister of Forestry. This was on May 7, which was in National Forest Week. This was a very important week in Canada, something of which I think all Canadians are aware.
The question that I put to the minister at the time was along these lines. I asked him in light of the commitment and the talk from the government about the importance of our environment and the announcement of The Green Plan what kind of commitment there was from the government to plant some trees. It was a very simple question.
During National Forest Week and on Earth Day everybody across the country-indeed, across North America and the world-were out doing their thing for the environment. Part of that was people planting trees. Everybody was out planting trees except for this government.
The reason we call on this government to tiy and plant some trees I think is pretty obvious. We know all the concerns about global warming, the role our forests play in our ecosystems, and all the employment that people from coast to coast get from our forests. There are over 300 communities dependent on the forest industry.
How does the federal government plant trees? It does it through a very effective vehicle that many provinces have come to be aware of. It is through forestry agreements, as they are called, that are signed with all provinces. They have been used in different parts of Canada for different purposes, often for research, assisting with the development of new species, and what have you.
In British Columbia, my home province, and in my own riding there has been a great deal of assistance given to replanting harvested land. This is because the government of the day failed to do any serious work in reforestation or any intensive silvicultural work, which

June 11, 1990
[Stage Direction]
left these lands unproductive with no seedlings to grow and no future for forests.
The government of the day came up with what are called the Forest Resource Development Agreements. I have raised this issue in the House on a number of occasions, primarily because we are faced now with the incredible situation that despite the rhetoric of the government and its so-called concern for the environment, it has allowed forestry agreements in Ontario, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and Alberta to expire well over a year ago. In British Columbia our forest agreement expired on March 31. We have been without a forest agreement for some 72 days now, despite six commitments by the Minister of Forestry to the people of British Columbia. One of the main commitments was that he would find the money in the Supplementary Estimates or elsewhere. We asked the department to produce that information for the forestry committee two months ago, and it has yet to find out any of that basic information.
The minister also made a commitment to us that he would have an agreement signed well before the planting season would start. The planting season for seedlings across the country varies, but in some cases in British Columbia it started as early as April. The time is coming fast, if it has not passed already, for contractors to gear up to plant trees. A number of contractors in British Columbia are now scaling down operations in the light of the absolute failure of the federal Conservative government and the Socred government in British Columbia to reach and sign a forest agreement. It is critical that we do that in this country.
I want to read into the record from Forestry Canada's own 1990-1991 Estimates. This is important information for all of us. It concerns how many trees we are planting versus how much we are harvesting and what we have left over. I quote:
- in 1987, of a total harvest estimated at just under 1 million hectares, 285,000 hectares were successfully planted or seeded while a further 500,000 hectares are estimated to have regenerated naturally, leaving a shortfall of 210,000 hectares.
These figures are likely small c conservative. Just under 250,000 hectares are being added to the non-for-ested land in this country because of the lack of forest agreements, the lack of the kind of forest management policies that we should have in this country. We have called upon this government and the provincial govern-
Adjoumment Debate
ments to move as quickly as they can to ensure that those agreements are signed.
I understand that the Minister of Forestry is meeting this Thursday with the provincial minister in B.C. I urge them to get on with the job and sign those forest agreements. Let us start planting some trees for once.
Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I was greatly interested in the comments of my colleague who, in the course of his remarks, stated that in recent years the federal government, our government, the Progressive Conservative Party has not accomplished anything at all in terms of reforestation. I would remind him that since 1984 our government increased the forestry budget by more than 300 per cent. Our government also signed in excess of $1.2 billion worth of investment agreements with the Canadian provinces, including British Columbia, Quebec, Newfoundland and all the other provinces. We are talking about investments of more than $1.3 billion dollars' worth of seedlings we have planted.
My colleague ought to acknowledge the boost our government has given to Canada's forest sector by establishing a full-fledged Department of Forestry. He should also admit-and it is unfortunate that he would not say so-that most cases related to public forests fall under provincial jurisdiction. This is something the federal government takes into account in all such agreements signed with British Columbia and Quebec. He cannot ignore the fact that it is the provinces' responsibility.
The Minister of Forestry said yes, we are prepared to work together. Yes we are prepared to renew the forest agreements inasmuch as each province demonstrates genuine interest in this natural resource. Mr. Speaker, that is our approach in the ongoing negotiations.
I would remind my colleague that the March 31 agreement has ended, It is true, there is a certain delay. But it is better to take the time required to sign an agreement that will benefit the provinces, the forestry industry and our young people's future than to sign an agreement prematurely to satisfy the very short-term needs of individuals who want to keep their original businesses running some way or other. The goal of the federal government and the Department of Forestry is to reach solid, lasting agreements for sustainable development in the interests of future generations. That is what we want, Mr. Speaker.

June 11, 1990


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion that tomorrow at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1). the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been
adopted. The House therefore stands adjourned until The House adjourned at 9.46 p.m.


June 1!,1990


FIRST MINISTERS' MEETING ON THE CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
June 9, 1990
[Stage Direction]
June 11, 1990
1990 CONSTITUTIONAL AGREEMENT
WHEREAS on April 30,1987, the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premiers reached agreement in principle on means to bring about the full and active participation of Quebec in Canada's constitutional evolution;
AND WHEREAS on June 3,1987, all first ministers signed the 1987 Constitutional Accord and committed themselves to introducing as soon as possible the Constitution Amendment, 1987 in Parliament and the provincial legislative assemblies;
AND WHEREAS the Constitution Amendment, 1987 has been authorized by Parliament and the legislative assemblies of Quebec, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, Ontario and British Columbia:
1.	THE MEECH LAKE ACCORD
The Premiers of New Brunswick, Manitoba and Newfoundland undertake to submit the Constitution Amendment, 1987 for appropriate legislative or public consideration and to use every possible effort to achieve decision prior to June 23, 1990.
2.	SENATE REFORM
After proclamation, the federal government and the provinces will constitute a commission with equal representation for each province and an appropriate number of territorial and federal representatives to conduct hearings and to report to Parliament and the legislative assemblies oi the provinces and territories, prior to the First Ministers' conference on the Senate to be held by the end of 1990 in British Columbia, on specific proposals for Senate reform that will give effect to the following objectives:
-	The Senate should be elected.
-	The Senate should provide for more equitable representation of the less populous provinces and territories.
-	The Senate should have effective powers to ensure the interests of residents of the less populous provinces and territories figure more prominently in national decision-making, reflect Canadian duality and strengthen the Government of Canada's capacity to govern on behalf of all citizens, while preserving the principle of the responsibility of the Government to the House of Commons.
Following proclamation of the Meech Lake Accord, the Prime Minister and all Premiers agree to seek adoption of an amendment on comprehensive Senate reform consistent with these objectives by July 1, 1995.
The Prime Minister undertakes to report semi-annually to the House of Commons on progress achieved towards comprehensive Senate reform.
The Prime Minister and all Premiers, reaffirming the commitment made in the Edmonton Declaration and the provisions to be entrenched under the Constitution Amendment, 1987, undertook that Senate reform will be the key constitutional priority until comprehensive reform is achieved.
June 11, 1990
[Stage Direction]
If, by July 1,1995, comprehensive Senate reform has not been achieved according to the objectives set out above under section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as amended by the Constitution Amendment, 1987, the number of Senators by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate will be amended so that, of the total of one hundred and four Senators, the representation of Ontario will be eighteen Senators, the representation of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfounland will be eight Senators each, and the representation of all other provinces and the territories will remain unchanged. In the case of any province whose representation declined, no new appointments would be made until that province's representation had by attrition declined below its new maximum. In the event of such a redistribution of Senate seats, Newfoundland would be entitled to another Member of Parliament in the House of Commons under section 51A of the Constitution Act, 1867.
3.	FURTHER CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS
(1)	Charter-Sex Equality Rights
Add section 28 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom to section 16 of the Constitution Amendment, 1987.
(2)	Role of the Territories
-	In appointments to the Senate and the Supreme Court of Canada.
In discussions on items on the agenda of annual constitutional and economic conferences where, in the view of the Prime Minister, matters to be discussed directly affect them.
(3)	Language Issues
-	Add to the agenda of constitutional conferences matters that are of interest to English-speaking and Frenchspeaking linguistic minorities.
Require resolutions of the House of Commons, the Senate and the legislative assembly of New Brunswick to amend that province's Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick (Bill 88).
(4)	Aboriginal Constitutional	Issues
First Ministers' constitutional conferences to be held once every three years, the first to be held within one year of proclamation; representatives of aboriginal peoples and the territorial governments to be invited by the Prime Minister to participate in the discussion of matters of interest to the aboriginal peoples of Canada.
The Prime Minister of Canada will lay or cause to be laid before the Senate and House of Commons, and the Premiers will lay or cause to be laid before their legislative assemblies, a resolution, in the form appended hereto, and will seek to authorize a proclamation to be issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada to amend the constitution of Canada as soon as possible after proclamation of the Constitution Amendment, 1987.
[Stage Direction]
June 11, 1990
4.	AGENDA FOR FUTURE CONSTITUTIONAL DISCUSSIONS
(1)	Creation of New Provinces in the Territories
The Prime Minister and all Premiers agreed future constitutional conferences should address available options for provincehood, including the possibility that, at the request of the Yukon and Northwest Territories to become provinces, only a resolution of the House of Commons and Senate be required.
(2)	Constitutional Recognitions
The Prime Minister and Premiers took note of repeated attempts by First Ministers over the past twenty years to draft a statement of constitutional recognitions. All such attempts were unsuccessful.
The Prime Minister and Premiers reviewed drafts submitted by the federal government and Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia, and agreed to refer immediately the drafts to an all-party Special Committee of the House of Commons. Public hearings would begin across Canada on July 16,1990 and a report on the substance and placement of the clause-in a manner consistent with the Constitution of Canada-would be prepared for consideration by First Ministers at their Conference in 1990.
(3)	Constitutional Reviews
The Prime Minister and all Premiers agreed jointly to review, at the constitutional conference required by section 49 of the Constitution Act, 1982: the entire process of amending the Constitution, including the three-year time limit under section 39(2) of that Act and the question of mandatory public hearings prior to adopting any measure related to a constitutional amendment, including revocation of a constitutional resolution.
Pursuant to section 50 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as proposed in the Constitution Amendment, 1987, the Prime Minister and the Premiers also committed to a continuing review of the operation of the Constitution of Canada, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with a view to making any appropriate constitutional amendments.
5.	SECTION 2: CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT, 1987
The Prime Minister and Premiers took note of public discussion of the distinct society clause since its inclusion in the Meech Lake Accord. A number of Canada's most distinguished constitutional authorities met to exchange views on the legal impact of the clause. The Prime Minister and Premiers reviewed their advice and other material.
The Prime Minister, in his capacity as chairman of the Conference, received from the above-noted constitutional authorities a legal opinion which is appended to the final Conference communique.
June 11, 1990
[Stage Direction]
6.	NEW BRUNSWICK AMENDMENT
-	Add a clause that within New Brunswick, the English linguistic community and the French linguistic community have equality of status and equal rights and privileges.
Affirm an additional role of the legislature and government of New Brunswick: to preserve and promote the equality of status and equal rights and privileges of the province's two official linguistic communities.
The Prime Minister of Canada will lay or cause to be laid before the Senate and House of Commons, and the Premier of New Brunswick will lay or cause to be laid before the legislative assembly of New Brunswick, a resolution, in the form appended hereto, and will seek to authorize a proclamation to be issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada to amend the Constitution of Canada as soon as possible after proclamation of the Constitution Amendment, 1987.
[Stage Direction]
Signed at Ottawa, June 9, 1990
Fait a Ottawa le 9 juin 1990
Canada
Ontario
Quebec
Nova Scotia	New Brunswick
Nouvelle-Ecosse	Nouveau-Brunswick
Manitoba* *	British Columbia
Colombie-Britannique
*	Subject to the public
hearing process
*	Sous reserve du processus
d'audiences publiques
a Prince Edward Island ile-du-Prince-Edouard
Saskatchewan
Alberta	Newfoundland *
Terre-Neuve
*	The Premier of Newfoundland endorses now the undertaking in Part I of this document and further undertakes to endorse fully this agreement if the Constitution Amendment, 1987 is given legislative or public approval following the consultation provided for in Part I.
*	Le premier ministre de Terre-Neuve endosse main-tenant l'engagement figurant dans la Partie I du present document et s'engage en outre a endosser la totalite de la presente entente si la Modification constitutionnelle de 1987 regoit une approbation legislative ou publique a Terre-Neuve suite aux consultations prevues a la Partie I.
June ! 1, 1990
[Stage Direction]
OTTAWA June 9, 1990
Dear Prime Minister:
In response to certain concerns which have been expressed in relation to section I of the proposed Constitution Amendment, 1987 (Meech Lake Accord), it is our pleasure to confirm our opinion on the following.
In our opinion, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be interpreted in a manner consistent with the duality/distinct society clause for the proposed Constitution Amendment, 1987 (Meech Lake Accord), but the rights and freedoms guaranteed thereunder are not infringed or denied by the application of the clause and continue to be guaranteed subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, and the duality/distinct society clause may be considered, in particular, in the application of section I of the Charter.
The Constitution of Canada, including sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, will be interpreted in a manner consistent with the duality/distinct society clause. While nothing in that clause creates new legislative authority for Parliament or any of the provincial legislatures, or derogates from any of their legislative authority, it may be considered in determining whether a particular law fits within the legislative authority of Parliament or any of the legislatures.
Gerald-A. Beaudoin, O.C., Q. C. Professor of Law University of Ottawa
B. Jamie Cameron Associate Professor Osgoode Hall Law School York University
E. Robert A. Edwards, Q.C. Assistant Deputy Attorney General Government of British Columbia
Peter W. Hogg, Q. C. Professor
Osgoode Hall Law School York University
Katherine Swinton Professor, Faculty of Law University of Toronto
Roger Tasse, O.C., Q.C. Barrister and Solicitor
[Stage Direction]
June 11, 1990
Motion for a Resolution to authorize an amendment to the Constitution of Canada
The (Senate) (House of Commons) (legislative assembly) resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by His Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the schedule hereto, but only after the Constitution Amendment, 1987 comes into force.
June 11, 1990
Participation of Territories
Amendment to New
Brunswick Act

[Stage Direction]
Constitution Act, 1867
1.	Section 25 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as enacted by section 2 of the Constitution Amendment, 1987, is amended by adding thereto, immediately after the word "province" wherever it occurs therein, the words "or territory".
2.	(1) Subsection 101C(1) of the said Act, as enacted by section 6 of the Constitution Amendment, 1987, is amended by adding thereto, immediately after the word "province" wherever it occurs therein, the words "or territory".
(2) Subsection 101C(4) of the said Act, as enacted by section 6 of the Constitution Amendment, 1987, is amended by adding thereto, immediately after the word "province" where it occurs therein, the words ", or territory,".
3.	Section 148 of the said Act, as enacted by section 8 of the Constitution Amendment, 1987, is renumbered as subsection 148(1) and is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(2) The Prime Minister of Canada shall invite elected representatives of the governments of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories to participate in the discussions on any item on the agenda of a conference convened under subsection (1) that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, directly affects the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories."
Constitution Act, 1982
4.	Section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982 is renumbered as subsection 43(1) and is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(2) An amendment to the Act of the Legislature of New Brunswick entitled An Act Recognizing the Equality of the Two Official Linguistic Communities in New Brunswick, chapter 0-1.1 of the Acts of New Brunswick, 1981, may be made by proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada only where so authorized by resolutions of the Senate and House of Commons and of the Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick."
5.	(1) Subsection 50(2) of the said Act, as enacted by section 13 of the Constitution Amendment, 1987, is amended by adding thereto, immediately after paragraph (a) thereof, the following paragraph:
[Stage Direction]
June 11, 1990
Participation of the Territories
Constitutional
conference
Participation of aboriginal peoples
Participation of Territories
Non-derogation
"(a. 1) matters of interest to English-speaking and French-speaking linguistic minorities;"
(2) Section 50 of the said Act, as enacted by section 13 of the Constitution Amendment, 1987, is further amended by adding thereto the following subsection:
"(3) The Prime Minister of Canada shall invite elected representatives of the governments of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories to participate in the discussions on any item on the agenda of a conference convened under subsection (1) that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, directly affects the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories."
6. The said Act is further amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 50 thereof, as enacted by section 13 of the Constitution Amendment, 1987, the following section:
"51. (1) A constitutional conference composed of the Prime Minister of Canada and the first ministers of the provinces shall be convened by the Prime Minister of Canada within one year after this Part comes into force and at least once in every third calendar year after the first such conference is convened.
(2)	Each conference convened under subsection (1) shall have included in its agenda matters of interest to the aboriginal peoples of Canada, and the Prime Minister of Canada shall invite representatives of those peoples to participate in the discussions on those matters.
(3)	The Prime Minister of Canada shall invite elected representatives of the governments of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories to participate in the discussions on any item on the agenda of a conference convened under subsection (1) that, in the opinion of the Prime Minister, directly affects the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories.
(4)	Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to derogate from section 35."

[Stage Direction]
7.	Section 16 of the Constitution Amendment, 1987 is amended by adding thereto,
immediately after the reference to section 27 where it occurs therein, the following: "or 28".

[Stage Direction]
Constitution Act, 1867
8. All that portion of section 22 of the Constitution Act, 1867 following item 4 and preceding the last paragraph thereof is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
.

June 11, 1990
[Stage Direction]
Reduction of Senate to normal number
Transitional
provision
Citation
"which Four Divisions shall, subject to the provisions of this Act, be represented in the Senate as follows: Ontario by eighteen Senators; Quebec by twenty-four Senators; the Maritime Provinces and Prince Edward Island by twenty Senators, eight thereof representing Nova Scotia, eight-thereof representing New Brunswick, and four thereof representing Prince Edward Island; the Western Provinces by thirty-two Senators, eight thereof representing Manitoba, eight thereof representing British Columbia, eight thereof representing Saskatchewan, and eight thereof representing Alberta; Newfoundland shall be entitled to be represented in the Senate by eight members; the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories shall be entitled to be represented in the Senate by one member each."
9.	Section 27 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"27. In case of such addition being at any time made, the Governor General shall not summon any person to the Senate, except on a further like direction by the Queen on the like recommendation, to represent one of the Four Divisions until such Division is represented by the number of Senators provided for by section 22 and no more."
10.	Notwithstanding section 22 of the Constitution Act, 1867, any province that is represented in the Senate on the coming into force of this Part by more Senators than are provided for under that section may continue to be so represented, but no additional persons may be summoned to the Senate to represent that province until the number of Senators representing that province falls below the number set out in section 22, and thereafter, subject to section 26, the number representing that province shall not exceed that number.
11.	(1) This Part shall not come into force if an amendment in relation to the Senate that is consistent with the objectives set out in the 1990 Constitutional Agreement signed at Ottawa on June 9, 1990 is made before July 1, 1995.
(2) If an amendment described in subsection (1) is not made before July 1, 1995, this Part shall come into force on that date.
Citation
12.	This amendment maybe cited as the Constitution Amendment, (year of proclamation)
[Stage Direction]
June 11, 1990
Motion for a Resolution to authorize an amendment to the Constitution of Canada
The (Senate) (House of Commons) (legislative assembly) resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by His Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in accordance with the schedule hereto.
June 11, 1990
[Stage Direction]
Interpretation
Role of legislature and Government of New Brunswick
Rights of legislatures and governments preserved
Citation

[Stage Direction]
CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT Constitution Act, 1867
1.	The Constitution Act, 1867 is amended by adding thereto, immediately after section 133 thereof, the following section:
"133.1 (1) The Constitution of Canada, as it relates to New Brunswick, shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the recognition that, within New Brunswick, the English linguistic community and the French linguistic community have equality of status and equal rights and privileges.
(2)	The role of the legislature and Government of New Brunswick to preserve and promote the equality of status and equal rights and privileges of the two linguistic communities referred to in subsection (1) is affirmed.
(3)	Nothing in this section derogates from the powers, rights or privileges of Parliament or the Government of Canada, or of the legislature or Government of New Brunswick, including any powers, rights or privileges relating to language.
Citation
2.	This amendment may be cited as the Constitution Amendment, (year of proclamation) (New Brunswick).
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 12, 1990