1990-04-25

['Mr. Speaker, I want to give Canadians the assurance that we want to achieve long-term economic prosperity for all the citizens of this country.\nI think it is absurd that, at a time when tens of thousands of unemployed workers cannot find jobs, so many employers are complaining about a shortage of qualified manpower.\nOur Canadian Jobs Strategy has a number of aims which include providing the necessary training programs to help unemployed workers find satisfactory employment; ensuring that employers have an adequate number of qualified workers; and implementing the programs needed to achieve these two objectives through a part-', 'April 25, 1990\nOral Questions\nnership involving the federal government, the private sector and the provinces.\nWe must urge the Senate to pass Bill C-21 without further delay.']
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, during a recent Interparliamentary Union trip to Cyprus, the Canadian delegation had the opportunity to visit the Canadian peacekeeping contingent on that divided island.
The commanding officer of the whole UN peacekeeping force is the highly-regarded Canadian, General Milner. The 575-man Canadian contingent is made up primarily of the Princess Patricia Regiment, with some reservists as supplementals.
Everywhere we went on the island the Canadian forces were praised for their competence, fairness and co-operation, as well as for the excellent humanitarian work they are doing with both Greek and Turkish civilian populations.
We as Canadians can be very proud of our troops in Cyprus as an example of international peacekeeping at its best. We wish General Milner, Colonel Sutherland and the troops good health, safety and a successful mission.



Ms. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has among other countries a reputation for tolerance and freedom.
Our country has been considerably enriched by the contributions of hundreds of thousands of immigrants. Among these immigrants, thousands of Armenians have found refuge in this country. Their dedication and unwavering loyalty have enriched the Canadian mosaic. The Armenian community's contribution to Canadian life is reflected in the churches, schools and cultural centres it has built across this country. In addition, they have made a major contribution to the arts, architecture, literature, photography, business, industry, law, public administration and education.

April 25, 1990
Yesterday was a memorable day for all our fellow citizens of Armenian origin, and especially in the riding of Ahuntsic.
Mr. Speaker, with Canadians across this country I want to say that the terrible events of the past of this valiant and courageous people must not be forgotten.


SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government is abandoning its moral and legal authority to lead the country on social policy; and it is forcing provinces to go it alone. This will result in greater regional inequality.
For example, the reaction from B.C. to the cap on the Canada Assistance Program has been to have the Public Gaming Branch speculate that the government controlled slot machines could raise as much as $120 million a year-enough to offset the loss of federal transfer payments.
The Socreds have even gone so far as to consider putting its own cap on, a cap on the amounts of money now earned by non-profit organizations that use casinos and bingos for raising money.
The Ontario Liberal government has reacted in its budget to the Tories' abandoned leadership by making it clear it cannot and will not revamp its welfare system as planned.
In addition, the Liberals in Ontario will be putting more emphasis on a shift to user-pay programming.
The mean-spirited Tory agenda is not an attack on the deficit, but an attack on the poor.


MEMBER FOR YORK SOUTH-WESTON
Mr. Yvon Cote (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I must strongly denounce the unworthy accusations and attitude of the member for York South-Weston, who called those who favour sovereignty for Quebec traitors and racists.
Should the hon. member for York South-Weston not have made the same remarks about those who, like APEC, promote a unilingual English Canada, or the hold-out premiers whose attitudes will lead to the weakening or disappearance of Canada in the Meech Lake affair?
The Liberal member for York South-Weston should have understood and recognized that Quebec separatists used to be great Canadians, until they were deprived of their rights, of a bilingual Canada and a strong Quebec.
In short, this Liberal member should have foreseen the dramatic effects his statements would have on all the other Quebecers who had until then been seeking a new Canada but who can no longer believe in it. Alas, this Chretien hack has sabotaged his own country which he claims to be virtuously defending!
Who is the real traitor, Mr. Speaker?


MONCTON
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the citizens of Moncton as the city celebrates its 100th birthday as a city.
The city was granted its Charter on April 23, 1890. April 23, 1990 was a special day-from the Citizenship Court swearing in of new Canadians, followed by students participating in the historical review "One Hundred Steps", to later in the day when Moncton City Council and Premier Frank McKenna went through a light-hearted re-enactment of the original granting of the Charter.
Moncton certainly lived up to its unofficial motto: "The City to Watch".

The history of Moncton is very varied. We have had shipbuilding, railways and now high technology. Our city is solidly built on two cultures. We are a microcosm of Canada.

My father and I both were mayors of the city of Moncton and, as all Monctonians, proud of its accomplishments. Happy Birthday, Moncton.

April 25, 1990



50TH ANNIVERSARY OF WOMEN'S RIGHT TO VOTE IN QUEBEC


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: In a show of solidarity with all women in Quebec, Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that today marks the 50th anniversary of their right to vote in provincial elections.
It was after constant and unrelenting struggles that, on April 25, 1940, pioneers like Marie Gerin-Lajoie, Therese Casgrain and Idola St-Jean were successful in having the Quebec legislature acknowledge their right to equality in chosing their elected representatives, men or women.
In difficult times, these women paved the way for what has now become an irreversible movement towards full equality. Today's feminists owe them a lot.


CANADA POST
Mr. Gaby Larrivee (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to their service reliability program, Canada Post management made a public commitment in 1987 that they would guarantee regular delivery of standard letters properly addressed between major urban centres within the following time frames: two working days for letters sent within the same urban centre; three working days for letters to another major urban centre in the same province; and four working days to a major urban centre in another province.
The Ernst and Young report tabled yesterday and based on a survey of more than 50,000 items mailed during the first three months of the year indicates a service performance averaging 97 per cent of set objectives. Specifically, the Sherbrooke and Quebec City regions recorded 99 per cent, Montreal, Laval and Longueuil 98 per cent, and Winnipeg, Regina and Saskatoon 99 per cent.
Mr. Speaker, Canada Post and all its employees are to be commended for their outstanding service to the Canadian people.


An Hon. Member:: Hurrah for Canada Post!


FISHERIES
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, with the advent of the spring lobster fishery in Nova Scotia, lobster fishermen in Nova Scotia and in the Gulf are nervous about their chances to survive another year.
As a result of lobster size regulations recently enacted by the United States Congress, prices have plummeted, falling to $2.50 a pound in southern Nova Scotia, well below last year's price of $4.50. Some industry observers think Gulf prices may soon fall below $2.
Yesterday's leak of the preliminary judgment by the binational free trade panel looking into the size regulations will no doubt put even more downward pressure on prices at the start of the season.
This is potentially disastrous. It will cost lobster fishermen untold thousands of dollars in lost income, maybe even their livelihood.
Atlantic Canadians cannot afford a crisis in yet another sector of the fishery. I call on the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to provide immediate help, both to cushion these fishermen against the offending size regulations and to help them find alternative markets for these lobsters.


BILL C-21
Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I want to give Canadians the assurance that we want to achieve long-term economic prosperity for all the citizens of this country.
I think it is absurd that, at a time when tens of thousands of unemployed workers cannot find jobs, so many employers are complaining about a shortage of qualified manpower.
Our Canadian Jobs Strategy has a number of aims which include providing the necessary training programs to help unemployed workers find satisfactory employment; ensuring that employers have an adequate number of qualified workers; and implementing the programs needed to achieve these two objectives through a part-

April 25, 1990
Oral Questions
nership involving the federal government, the private sector and the provinces.
We must urge the Senate to pass Bill C-21 without further delay.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Today, the Canadian Real Estate Association announced that last month the sales of existing homes and condominiums in major cities dropped by 22 per cent compared to March of last year.
Speaking about this, Carl Beigie, a leading Canadian economist, said:
We haven't seen the worst of it yet. It's like a house of cards. We're just starting to see the start of a really bad financial problem.
So I ask the minister this. Why are he and his government insisting on pursuing economic policies that are creating the start of a bad financial problem? Why is he doing this to Canadians, Canadian families, and Canadian workers?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have responded to questions along those lines before. Perhaps I could read from an editorial which appeared in The Financial Post today.
It's just as well the governor can weather the criticism; if he heeded his critics and loosened the monetary floodgates, we would really be in a pickle.
The editorial goes on to state:
- inflationary pressures have been stronger in Canada than in the U.S-But if our costs are not contained, how can we remain competitive? Easy money and a lower Canadian dollar may deliver a temporary advantage-Any weakening of the Bank's resolve to maintain the value of the currency will be quickly pounced upon by long-term investors who will demand an inflation premium-Once such a flight begins, it's hard to stop.
These comments in this editorial from The Financial Post set out quite clearly the problem that we face as a country, that we are Committed to dealing with, and that we find absolutely necessary to deal with and not to run
away from, as did my hon. friend opposite in the late 1970s and the early 1980s.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I, too, have a quote that I consider credible, and so will Canadians because it is from President Maurice R. Faraggi of the Canadian Real Estate Association. He said that the Canadian Real Estate Association:
-believes there is room for interest rates to come down and in fact called upon the Central Bank to reduce them. Instead we see increase after increase, putting enormous pressure on Canadian consumers and impeding the government's own deficit reduction goals by increasing the cost of servicing its enormous debt. Enough is enough. Interest rates must come down!
So says Maurice Faraggi, the head of a major business organization, the Canadian Real Estate Association.
If the minister is so concerned about inflation, then why is it that senior officials of the Prime Minister's own office and the Bank of Canada have been given pay increases of up to 17.6 per cent? Over the same period working people have received increases of only some 12.9 per cent? Why is the minister asking Canadians to bite the bullet on cost-of-living increases when he is not doing the same thing for the staff of the Prime Minister's office and the Bank of Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the hon. member has asked those questions because I want to put the accurate picture on the record.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As far as the staff of the Prime Minister's office is concerned, the article is wrong. Until this month, the staff had not received an increase since the last election-since the last election. The staff received a 4.2 per cent increase this month which is not retroactive. That is one raise of 4.2 per cent in nearly two years. That is not excessive.
As far as the Bank of Canada is concerned, according to the article that I saw in the newspaper, the bank's salaiy structure in the 1987 to 1989 period was up 12.6 per cent. The public sector settlements during that same period were 14 per cent. Private sector settlements during that same period were 14.8 per cent. The Bank of Canada is in line with what is happening in terms of
April 25, 1990

Oral Questions
settlements in other parts of the public sector, as well as in the private sector.
I might point out that personal disposable income per capita during that 1987 to 1989 period is up 25.2 per cent.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance avoided any comments on the salary increase of the Governor of the Bank of Canada which, according to my information, is above the level he mentioned.
I also want to ask the Minister of Finance why he did not react to what was said by the President of the Canadian Real Estate Association, who asked him for major reductions in interest rates. Why is the minister so reluctant to respond to one of our country's important businessmen?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the Leader of the Opposition can say I have not given an answer to the question that he says was asked by the Canadian Real Estate Association. I answered that question on Monday. I answered it yesterday. I answered it again today. If he would like me to repeat it again, I will give him the answer.
First, let me say that I am not happy about interest rates being where they are today. I would like to see interest rates lower. It would certainly make my job a lot easier as Minister of Finance.
I do know that if we let these inflationary pressures get out of hand we will be back to where we started at around a 5.5 per cent inflation rate in the mid-1970s. It moved up to 13 per cent because the government of the day did not take the problem seriously. We are taking the problem seriously. We are trying to head off the problem before it gets out of control and before it leads to a 13 per cent inflation rate and the 20 per cent to 25 per cent interest rates that we saw in the early 1980s.
Surely my hon. friend's memory is not that bad that he cannot remember the damage that that period did to the economy of Canada. We are trying to avoid that with the policies we are following.


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, in his Budget the Minister of Finance explained that the average interest rate in Canada this year should be around 11.1 per cent. Subsequently, the Prime Minister of Canada told us that interest rates should go down very shortly.
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Does the government set monetary policy for this country or does the Financial Post, which is the impression we get from his answer to the Leader of the Liberal Party?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, first, let me congratulate my hon. friend for having been moved from the back row up to the second row. I would caution him not to be too influenced by those people on his left flank.


Some Hon. Members:: Flear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I might also say that he should be pretty cautious about the ideas he takes from his right flank as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister could respond to the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, these are serious matters. I have discussed them at some length in the House during the past two days, and I am willing to do so again. I am willing to discuss these matters further at committee, if members wish me to do so.
I reported what was stated in The Financial Post. That is a responsible newspaper expressing, I think, a point of view that is a responsible point of view. It is a point of view that I think is important for Canadians to understand.
As I have indicated, I am not happy about high interest rates. I would like to see them come down. But I want to see them come down on a permanent basis, not on a short-term basis to then find that interest rates and inflation are much higher. The problem would be much more difficult to resolve at that stage, as we found out in 1980 to 1982 when we went through a very serious recession and we saw all the damage that caused.

April 25, 1990
Oral Questions


M. Douglas Young: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance.
For months, if not for the last couple of years, the Governor of the Bank of Canada has said that inflation is public enemy number one. Does the Minister of Finance not believe that the time has come to recognize that the high interest rate policy and the high value of the Canadian dollar are creating the real public enemy number one in this country, which is a recession? Does the minister not realize that this is what the end result of his policies will be? As a result, will he change those policies?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, if we could go back and look at every recession that has happened, at least since the war, we would see that there has always been a period of high inflation, inflation that got out of control, before we had a recession. What we are trying to do is to keep the level of inflation down, avoid the problems that a high level of inflation causes, along with the blow-off that comes from it and the sudden drop that follows. That is the essence of the policies we are following.
My hon. friend says that there is a lot of advice to the contrary. I understand that. But I can take my hon. friend back to August of 1988 and August of 1989 when we had the unanimous recommendation from the provincial premiers to reduce interest rates. If we had reduced interest rates at that time, we would have considerably higher levels of inflation today and we would be that much closer to a serious recession of the type my friend is talking about, the type of recession we are committed to avoid.


CHILD CARE
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister.
In July, 1988, the Prime Minister told a meeting in Toronto: "We will implement and build on our national child care program". During the last election campaign in October, 1988, the Prime Minister said again of the government's child care legislation: "We will be reintroducing that legislation and pass it as soon as Parliament comes back after the election".
Parliament has been back for a year and half, and we are still waiting for child care legislation. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister this. Will the government make a commitment now to bring in child care legislation this year?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth) and Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare said yesterday, and as was announced in the Speech from the Throne on April 3,1989, this government will have a child care program implemented before 1993.
If it had not been for the other place, we would now have a child care program implemented.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: My supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker.
There are 1.3 million children in Canada in need of child care spaces. There are just over 200,000 licensed child care spaces. Now the government is saying to wait until 1993.

Mr. Speaker, in 1984 during the election campaign, the Prime Minister promised to improve child care services. Six years later, the situation is still the same. A whole generation has grown up since. Will this government take action now instead of waiting until the next election campaign?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the New Democratic Party says that in 1984 we talked about this program, she is right. However, we not only talked about it, we passed legislation in the House of Commons. It has not been implemented, not through the fault of the government but of the other place. The Senate failed to pass legislation, not us. We did our job, and the Leader of the NDP should congratulate the government on the good work it did during its first term.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: The government knows that that legislation was not put in force because it was unacceptable to every child care group in this country.
The government continually refuses to live up to its commitments to the children of this country and is abandoning the families of this country. The government has promised that child care facilities will be available in all new and renovated federal government buildings. Yet the government is breaking its promise again for new federal buildings. I cite one example in Whitehorse, Yukon.
Will this government guarantee now that child care facilities, as it has been agreed to with the Public Service Commission in Whitehorse, Yukon, and throughout Canada, will be assured in all federal buildings?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party says that we did nothing. We put $6.4 billion for child care programs in our last mandate. How can the hon. member say that was nothing; $6.4 billion.
The only reason it is not implemented is because the other place would not do so. It is not the fault of this government, it is the fault of the other place. Maybe the Liberals should talk to their colleagues in the other place.


Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Currently there are more than 2 million children under age 12 who require day care. Yet, thanks to this government's previous commitment to day care, there are only enough licensed spaces for about 10 per cent of these children.
My question is, quite simply, when is this government going to recognize the day care crisis in Canada and give us a firm date on when the new legislation will be introduced? Nineteen ninety-three is not acceptable.


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, 1993 may not be acceptable to
Oral Questions
the hon. member, but 1988 would have been acceptable to this government when it passed the legislation.
I am surprised that this question would come from a member of the Official Opposition. All the member would have had to do was talk to the members of the Liberal Party in the other place and we would now have a child care program in place in Canada.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, the member should refrain from giving the government's old refrain and answer the chorus of discontent in this country. Working mothers are not among the 15 per cent of Canadians who still support this government.
If and when the government decides to live up to its new-found interest in children, is this government prepared to guarantee to this House that new legislation will not put a funding cap on new spaces, will set all-important national standards for high quality care and assure Canadians for the first time that it will provide for the national enforcement of those standards?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, for the second time, I am surprised to have a question on a national child care program from a Liberal member of the Official Opposition. This government passed legislation that created a national child care program and allocated $6.4 billion to it. The only reason many children in this country do not have a national day care system is the Senate, the other place.


M. Douglas Young: Everyone in Canada opposed your proposal.


Marcel Danis: And I hope that the Liberal member opposite will give the Senate the message about child care, and about the unemployment insurance bill as well.


LINGUISTIC MINORITIES
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Secretary of State, but in his absence, I shall direct it to the Deputy Prime Minister.

April 25, 1990
Oral Questions
Yesterday, the Secretary of State told us in this House that he had called Saskatchewan Education Minister Meiklejohn and obtained an assurance from him that his government intended to move quickly on implementing a school system controlled and run by the minority.
Mr. Speaker, today's Le Devoir informs us that the same education minister said that he was not sure he could proceed with this program of minority-controlled schools promised by the Saskatchewan government.
I ask the minister to obtain a firm commitment in writing from the Saskatchewan government that it will keep its promise to its minority and provide Saskatchewan francophones with a school system that meets their needs and which they will manage and control, in a clearly specified time frame.


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Mulroney wrote to the Saskatchewan government very recently to deeply deplore the delay in setting up the separately managed school system. He even offered the Saskatchewan government legal services and the federal government's legal expertise, since the Saskatchewan government used this argument to justify the delay in establishing the new system.
The National Commission of Francophone Parents today issued a press release congratulating Prime Minister Mulroney for his leadership on this issue.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the minister may satisfy himself with a letter from the Prime Minister, but that does not give that minority anything in terms of concrete actions from its provincial government. An agreement was signed in 1988 for $26 million over 10 years to provide for a service, the implementation of a system of control and management of the schools by the minority.
Will the minister give this House his assurance that within that bilateral federal-provincial agreement no moneys will be spent at this time until a reasonable, acceptable, concrete commitment by the province has been given to the francophone population of that province that meets with their ideas of what should be in place in Saskatchewan?


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, nobody can raise any question on the sincerity of the efforts made by this government to promote French outside of Quebec. I would remind my hon. colleagues from the other side of the House that today the Fransaskais themselves have issued a communique recognizing the leadership shown by the Prime Minister on this issue.


INTEREST RATES
Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and concerns high interest rates and inflation. Over the last year increases in interest rates have meant that monthly mortgage payments on an average home have increased by over $200 per month. Because of taxes and payroll deductions, in order to have $200 a month a person must earn $400 a month. This is a major cause of wage pressure and wage inflation.
In the face of this clear evidence, will the minister now admit that high interest rates are a prime cause of inflation, not a cure for inflation?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, I do
not accept that statement at all, Mr. Speaker. Let me take my friend back to what has happened during the course of 1989.
We had bank credit, that is loan demand for business loans, for consumer loans, for household mortgage loans, all growing in excess of 10 per cent per annum throughout this period and for mortgage loans the rate of growth ranged between 15 and 20 per cent per annum.
If we had reduced interest rates at that time, as my colleague has said that he would like us to have done, we would increase the demand for those loans. That loan demand would have been much higher than it was and that just sows the seeds for future inflation.
This is precisely what we are trying to avoid. High interest rates are the symptom of the problem. The cause of the problem is inflation. Inflation causes high interest rates.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. It is obvious that the government does not care about child care but it also becoming apparent that it does not care about homeless children.
April 25, 1990

Each increase of 1 per cent in the mortgage rates means another 100,000 Canadians cannot afford to purchase a home. Housing resales have plummeted. Houses starts will fall within six months.
The Minister of Finance knows that housing construction is one of the main engines of our economy. Will the minister now say that interest rates have peaked, or will he continue with his bull-headed high interest rate policy and force this country into a full recession?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, housing starts, according to the most recent figures, I believe, were 222,000 on an annual basis. They have been in excess of 200,000 starts a year for three or four years now. So we have had a very strong housing market that has been well supported by the policies that have been followed by this government. That is one of the reasons why we have unemployment down to the lowest levels that it has been for many, many years now. This suggests to me that our economy is operating at high levels of activity which is leading to the levels of inflationary pressures that we are seeing today.
But, Mr. Speaker, my colleague is forgetting that in the 1970s and early 1980s, when problems of inflation were ignored or were not taken seriously enough by the previous government, we ended up with exactly the problem that my hon. friend tells me that we should be trying to avoid.
That is why we are doing what we are doing, to stop the inflationary pressures where they are now, to start the levels of inflation turning down rather than continuing up, because if they do continue up, we will most certainly see the problems of high interest rates, high unemployment and a plummet in housing starts which my hon. friend is concerned about.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Marc Ferland: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Employment and Immigration). Some 54 weeks have elapsed since this Government tabled in this House the Labour Force Development Strategy. Also, Bill C-21 has been passed by this House.
Oral Questions
Right now, Mr. Speaker, a number of my constituents have to wait between 14 and 20 weeks to be entitled to UI benefits. I would like to know from the Minister what she intends to do to help the unemployed in my constituency, because they are hurting.


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is expressing the concerns of many Canadian workers. I would like first to reassure this House and express this Government's intention to provide Canadian workers with a long-term economic future.
This being said, we all know that Bill C-21 is based on a variable entrance requirement which will provide us with a system that is fairer. Under that requirement, workers in high unemployment areas will only need 10 weeks of employment. The requirement becomes higher in more prosperous areas. It may be important to add that there will no longer be that six week penalty for seasonal workers who apply for benefits more than once during one year.
I would like to take this opportunity to once more urge the other House to pass within the shortest possible time frame Bill C-21, which will be of help to our workers.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of the United Kingdom Select Committee on Members' Interests, led by Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FIREARMS CONTROL
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Justice or perhaps the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
When the Minister of Justice visited the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal recently, students presented the minister with 25 boxes of petitions, with more than
500,000	signatures, asking for more effective control of firearms. On that occasion, the minister promised to table a bill in the House by the end of this month. Since

April 25, 1990
Oral Questions
it is now April 25, could the minister inform the House when we will have this bill before the House? On what date?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: I want to thank my hon. friend for the question. It is, indeed, a very serious situation. The government has been reviewing the present firearms legislation for some time now. I can assure my friend that it was a very extensive consultation process because in my former capacity I was heavily involved in that consultation process.
The new minister is seized of the matter, and I am sure that she will be bringing it forward as soon as she has an opportunity to familiarize herself with the legislation and with all the ramifications.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the minister promised to bring in that bill before the end of the month.
Can the minister tell this House whether the law will ban the sale of military and paramilitary weapons to private citizens?
I want to remind the minister that the gun that was used to kill those 14 women at the University of Montreal was a Ruger semi-automatic rifle which could fire up to 50 rounds of ammunition and which is now used by several police SWAT squads and military forces.
Does the minister and the government think that this is the type of gun that should be sold to private citizens over the counter?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should advise my hon. friend that the initiative started off to look at banning the sale of automatic weapons which had been converted to semi-automatic weapons for the purpose of bringing them into the country. Since this legislation had not been revised for some ten years, there was an effort made to review all of the ramifications of the firearms control legislation in an effort to improve it.
I can assure my hon. friend that we take the sale of military weapons very, very seriously. My colleague, the Minister of Justice, is looking at the question of magazine size, but there is no intention to ban semi-automatic weapons.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There are reports today that the Free Trade Panel is about to support the U.S. measure to restrict exports of Canadian lobster to the United States. Considering the devastating impact of such a decision, what does the minister intend to do to remove the uncertainty this U.S. measure has created in the lobster industry in the Maritimes, at a time when the fishing season is about to begin?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the House will remember that on December 21, Canada invoked Chapter 18 dispute resolution mechanisms of the free trade agreement to have a bi-national panel set up that would challenge American amendments to the Magnuson Act, amendments which would effectively prohibit the importation into the United States of live lobster smaller than the American minimum size. That panel has completed its interim report. That was a confidential report until elements of it were published today in the press.
As the member will know, there is a procedure which allows the Government of Canada and the affected industry to comment on this interim report up until April 30. There were consultations held yesterday in Halifax with regard to the comments that Canada would make. Those comments will be made prior to April 30.
I remind the House that the final report does not come in until May 15. We intend to continue to press the interests of Canadian lobster fishermen.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, last fall when the U.S. legislation the minister is talking about was introduced, the Prime Minister promised to use the full weight of government influence to prevent it from being passed. Yet it was passed and now we have reports that this measure, which the Minister for International Trade has called "a trade
April 25, 1990

distorting measure", has been found acceptable by the bi-national panel.
Will the minister tell this House today what further action he will take to lift the cloud which this U.S. trade restriction has created on the Atlantic lobster industry?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister said that he would bring the full weight of Canadian influence to bear. I was with him when he raised the matter specifically with the President of the United States and argued strongly that the legislation not be proceeded with. Unfortunately, the President moved in his own jurisdiction to proceed with the amendments. We then immediately triggered the provisions that exist under the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
A panel was established in accordance with the provisions of the FTA. The panel was not unanimous on the basic question that is of concern to Canada which is what we believe to be the trade distorting implications of the U.S. measure.
There has been an interim report. We are disappointed with the interim report. We are availing ourselves of the provisions set out in the FTA and will comment on the interim report with the hope that the final report which has yet to come will be more satisfactory from the Canadian perspective.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Two days ago, during the energy and transportation session of the parliamentary forum on global climate change, all three expert witnesses, including the President of the Canadian Automobile Association, condemned the government for going in the wrong direction by cutting funding for energy alternatives and conservation by over 90 per cent since 1984.
As it is a waste of time to consult further on what is universally agreed and as, in the words of the environment minister, "the price of inaction is too high", will
Oral Questions
the energy minister restore funding for these very effective programs to 1984 levels now, and not use the excuse of The Green Plan discussions to further stall what virtually everyone agrees should be done immediately?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question, I have met with a number of the Canadian automobile manufacturers and have raised the issues with them. We have had a good discussion as to what possible further energy efficiencies we might be able to meet in that field.
I am meeting with the window and door manufacturers of Canada later on with respect to inert gases in doors and windows as well as the work on R-2000.
I am not using the excuse of The Green Plan at all to withhold any plan on energy efficiency and conservation. In fact, the Minister of the Environment and I are concourant on those issues.
The issue at which the hon. member for Edmonton East and I are at odds is that I do not intend to spend money, as was done before, on programs that paid public servants for work that was already in the marketplace. I believe that money should be spent for further R and D so that we can get more energy efficiency, rather than pay for the salaries that were then in place.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, while no one advocates the duplication of expenditures, I do not think anyone would agree that meetings and discussions are substitutes for money.
However, given that Petro-Canada is well placed to take a leadership role in helping to make Canada, in the words of The Green Plan paper, "the industrial world's most environmentally friendly country", will the minister go back to his cabinet colleagues and urge them to scrap their plans to privatize Petro-Canada? Will he urge them to start using Canada's energy corporation actively and creatively to promote a more environmentally responsible energy future?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think that the philosophical position which the hon. member has put forward, that in some way a publicly owned corporation is more energy efficient, or can be more conscious of environmental issues, is a veiy short-sighted view.

April 25, 1990
Oral Questions
Right across the energy field there are energy efficiencies. There are different blends of fuels, for example. It was not only Petro-Canada that introduced different blends and removed lead, it was all companies because this government made that decision.
It is of no consequence whatsoever whether a company is private or public. The issue is how to get more energy efficiency, how to use energy more effectively, how that fits in with the environmental plan and how we educate Canadians on those issues.
That is the issue. It has nothing to do with the Neanderthal view the NDP has that public is somehow better.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. There presently exists a terrible situation in Burma. There is brutal suppression of human rights. Thousands of human beings are being massacred.
Will the elections that are going to be held in May in Burma be democratic when members of the opposition parties are thrown in jail without trial if they choose to contest the upcoming election?
Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs advise this House whether Canada will send a delegation to observe the Burmese elections in May?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are deeply concerned about the political situation and the abuse of human rights in Burma, which is now known as Myanmar. The government of that country has made it clear that it will not welcome political observers. Indeed, it has gone a step further and indicated that it is putting a severe limitation upon the visits by tourists and others to the country because it expects that some of those tourists, journalists or others, might function as election observers. I think that makes it extremely unlikely that the election that is planned for that country will be a democratic or a full election.
We are calling in the Ambassador of Myanmar to Canada to express our most serious objections to that procedure and we are making those representations in Myanmar itself.


CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Recent media reports have indicated that Correctional Service Canada plans to install a newly conceived and designed parole office in downtown Toronto. This office would exclusively serve a concentrated number of high risk offenders who are released on mandatory supervision. This particular office location is not far from where the Tema Conter tragedy took place a couple of years ago.
What steps is Correctional Service Canada taking to explain to the community what exactly is being planned here and why these so-called high risk offenders are being released in the first place to the community prior to the termination of their sentences?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the release of inmates, either on parole or on mandatory supervision, as my hon. colleague knows, there are some programs to that effect and the Parole Board obviously makes those decisions bearing in mind the criteria which is the utmost safety of the people in the community or communities which may be concerned.
With respect to the "super office" that he is referring to, there is a pilot project that will be under way and I am convinced that the service will do whatever consultation is necessary in order to make sure that everybody is aware of what is coming down.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, this particular facility will be bringing together a relatively large number of potentially high risk offenders and they will be concentrated administratively in one particular place.
In view of the fact that this type of initiative is a new concept for Correctional Service, specifically what steps are going to be taken by the government to increase the security and protection for the public and to reassure them that the correction system maintains public security as its primary goal?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, public safety is the prime criteria that is taken into consideration when an inmate is given either probation or mandatory supervision. Therefore, the public security concept is taken into
April 25, 1990

consideration and the service will continue to make sure that public safety is maintained and protected.
I think it might be important once in a while to look at the success stories of those particular situations rather than only the unfortunate circumstances that do occur from time to time. The service is very aware of those concerns and will take every step necessary to protect public safety.


CANADA POST
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott -Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister responsible for Canada Post and concerns the report on mail delivery released yesterday. As the minister is aware, the report recommends either closing or privatizing all rural post offices in Canada. Considering that this measure would result in 10,000 people being laid off, 80 per cent of whom are women, which would be the largest number of women laid off in Canada's history, will the minister today, on the anniversary of women's suffrage in Quebec, reject this recommendation and give Canadian women working in rural post offices the assurance that their jobs are safe?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, if things were anywhere like the description in the preamble of the hon. member's question, I might be inclined to. Of course he knows that is not the fact.
In fact, he knows there is no lay-off of rural postmasters. Only when there is an occurrence of somebody resigning or someone who is deceased or so on, or where the community has shrunk, does the post office look at the possibility of putting in a retail postal outlet. Where that has been done around the country, the users of the post office have approved of the change by an overwhelming percentage. They end up with better service, they like it.
Privilege
It is service to the customers of the post office we have asked the management to look after first and foremost, and they are doing it in superb fashion.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party will be shrunk the day after the next election.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: I want to ask a supplementary question of the minister responsible for Canada Post. Why is he not prepared to say right now in the House of Commons that he intends to protect the quality of the delivery of mail to rural Canadians? What does the Conservative party have against rural Canada?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I will go further than that and say I will protect the quality of rural mail delivery. I will also guarantee to continue the improvement in rural services that we have seen over the last four years.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to bring to the attention of the House a most important matter of privilege which originated here and that I was informed of on Monday.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South -Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to clarify the remarks I made at the Liberal leadership forum in Halifax on the weekend.
I would like to make it absolutely clear at the outset that it was not my intention in any way, shape, or form to insult Quebecers or anyone else. I did not in my statement use the words "sedition" or "treason", words that have been attributed to me. I did not cite the Criminal Code of Canada. Yet there are those, for political reasons I suspect, who have attributed certain words to me.
I did indicate in Halifax that in my view separatists were traitors. Those were the words I used. I was not referring to Quebecers. I was referring to the small

April 25, 1990
Privilege
minority of individuals who have as their raison d'etre the destruction of our country, who promote actively on an ongoing basis the division of Canada. I did not mean the word in the criminal sense. On the contrary, I meant it in the dictionary sense, if you will, and I would like to cite the Oxford dictionary definition of "traitor".
One who is false to his allegiance or acts disloyally (to country-
Mr. Speaker, after our election when we became members of Parliament, we were all required to swear an oath of allegiance before we could take our seats in this place. That is a requirement in law under the British North America Act. Each and every one of us in this House had to swear the following oath:
I, -, do swear, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.
That is required under the British North America Act, The Fifth Schedule. Those who for religious reasons feel it necessary to affirm in lieu of the oath are required to state that:
I, -, do solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare that taking of an oath is according to my religious belief unlawful, and I do also solemnly, sincerely and truly affirm and declare that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.
That is the duty and the responsibility of each and every one of us who has been elected to the Parliament of Canada.
With respect to separatists, there are a number of people who have different definitions or interpretations of the word "separatist" and who is a separatist and who is not, and whether a separatist is a nationalist, and whether a nationalist is a separatist. In the context of my comments at Halifax, I was referring to those who have as their preoccupation, their raison d'etre, the division of Canada. If that is their ambition and goal, then how can it be said, according to the dictionary definition, that the person is loyal to Canada.
In so far as the words "racist" and "bigot" are concerned, I did not call anyone a racist or a bigot. I did not refer to any particular individual as a racist or a bigot. I did not introduce the words racism and bigotry into this debate. A few months ago the Prime Minister said the following, and I agree with him with respect to this particular quote.
In the article entitled "Language Intolerance is Near Racism, PM", the Prime Minister said: "Great nations are built by generosity and understanding and by resisting the temptation to knock one's neighbours or diminish someone who is different. Once you get after language the next thing is race, the next thing is religion and the next thing is colour. That is the absence of tolerance."
The Prime Minister said on September 14, 1984, and I quote: "To try to curry the favour of the Parti Quebecois organization during a leadership campaign is dangerous to the candidate who does it. It is dangerous for the future of the party he seeks to lead and it is dangerous to the future of the united country he seeks to govern. You do not become Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada by playing footsie with the Parti Quebecois."
At the time, he was expressing concerns I have, that all too often, in recognizing the sensitivity of the matter, it appears difficult to stand up and fight for Canada, to defend Canada and to take to task those who have as their vocation the division of Canada. What I intended at Halifax was to take the separatists to task for their goal and ambition.
Others have used similar language. It is strong language, but we have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in Canada. Each and every one of us is afforded certain rights and privileges, and one of them is freedom of speech. I do not deny those who advocate separatism the right, in a lawful manner, to advocate separatism or division. That is their right. As long as it is not done in a violent fashion or as long as one does not promote violence, it is their right. But it is also my right as a Canadian and as a member of Parliament to stand up and debate and discuss in a very firm fashion my views with respect to the issue of national unity.
A great number of members in this House have made comments as of late with respect to the whole question of the Meech Lake Accord or national unity. The member for Kitchener, for example, just a few weeks ago said and I quote:
When I listen to some of my Quebec colleagues I don't like what I am hearing. I sometimes wonder if it almost treason to keep talking about separatism.
April 25, 1990

There are others, and I will not cite all of them, that have expressed-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I could perhaps help all hon. members and the hon. member from York South-Weston. I have been listening extremely carefully, as other members have, I think, to what is a sensitive statement.
I wonder if the hon. member could keep on the subject which caused the application a couple of days ago. I do not think it adds very much to be quoting other members on other matters, although I understand that clearly the hon. member has done so up to this point to indicate that he is not the only person who may have strong views on delicate issues. I would ask him to stay as closely as he can to the matter which I think he has already introduced very properly.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by saying that all too often a different standard is used with respect to different individuals, and I understand that. I am part of the cut and thrust of this place, and you yourself have indicated that this is not a place for the weak and timid. I have taken my lumps and I will continue to them. I just wish to be afforded the same fairness and opportunity to express my point of view, and I will try to make my statement in the most sensitive manner possible. I would expect that the same standard be used when members on the other side of the House, for example, ask Canadians to choose between Newfoundland or Quebec.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: When given the opportunity, and I do not want to engage with the members opposite-


Mr. Speaker:: I think what the hon. member is trying to do here-and hon. members have been very quiet and very co-operative-is to indicate that whatever was said was not meant to apply to other members of this honourable place. I think that the hon. member is intending to say that. I must invite him to perhaps make that clear, because I think that if that is what is made clear that is very much the end of the issue.


John V. Nunziata: I will make that clear, Mr. Speaker. Some of my comments, as I indicated, were distorted. I did not make some of the statements that have been attributed to me with respect to treason and sedition in the Criminal Code of Canada. I did not direct my comments to any member in this House. On the contrary, every member of this House has sworn an oath of
Privilege
allegiance. My comments were directed to others outside this Chamber.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to thank the hon. member very much for coming into this House.

I thank the hon. member for his comments. There is no need for further discussion. It was originally intended as a question of privilege-


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


Mr. Speaker:: In the opinion of the Chair, the case is closed.


Some Hon. Members:: No, no!


Lucien Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take the floor, if I may, because I was the only member of this House who was mentioned-indirectly in what the hon. member said earlier and directly during the days that led up to the present events. Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to say anything that would in any way worsen a situation that is almost unacceptable. I think this is not the time for petty bickering. I believe the occasion demands that we rise above such considerations.
Bearing this in mind, I would like to deal very quickly with two questions. I realize it is not very prudent, but I feel it is my duty because I have known these men and women. The hon. member referred to the Parti Quebecois as a party that, he implied, was separatist. Not seditious, but separatist as synonymous with treason. He did not say "treason" but he said traitor. I knew most of the men and women who were part of that government. I knew Mr. Levesque personally. He was a great democrat, a man whose democratic and peace-loving spirit all Canadians should appreciate, a man who led a veiy difficult debate in a political situation that was extremely volatile and who brought this debate to a democratic conclusion, with the results we all know. I think that at least in this House, the honor of this man and of those who work with him deserves our respect.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Bouchard: Second, Mr. Speaker, the Parti Quebecois is a lawfully established party that was democratically and lawfully elected to guide the destiny of Quebec during those years, and it too is entitled to the respect of this House.

April 25, 1990
Privilege
Furthermore, I see a number of things in what the hon. member said. I will not get into details, but I certainly see a breach of the privileges of this House. I see an insult to Quebecers, I see a breach of the privileges of this House and I see a breach of our privileges in Quebec, because of the undue burden they would have us carry. Every time we want to speak for Quebec, every time we want to promote Quebec's interests, they want us to prove our loyalty to Canada.
Let's talk about this loyalty to Canada. We hear a lot about it. I think, Mr. Speaker, that we must recognize- especially the member concerned-that the members of the House from Quebec made an act of faith toward both Quebec and Canada when they came here. They did by coming here after their election to represent Quebec in this House, as the members from Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Atlantic Canada and Newfoundland represent their constituents. I must say, however, that they did not want to be asked to forget where they were from when they came here. Do not ask us to forget that we are Quebecers and that we come from a nation who has had to struggle relentlessly for its survival. A Quebecer coming to Ottawa must not forget that.
Coming to Ottawa, we also became aware of the risk we were taking. It has sometimes been called "le beau risque". It was a risk worth taking and, as far as I am concerned, it still is.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lucien Bouchard: The risk of succeeding or failing. Success means opening the way for the future of a very large country in which there will be room for Quebec, a country that all Quebecers wil be able to love wholeheartedly. That is what I call success, Mr. Speaker. The way to success on the Meech Lake Accord is reconciliation. And the Prime Minister (M. Mulroney) has lead the country on this path, pursuant to the committment he has taken in 1984 and that he has honored, a path on which all Premiers have joined him in 1987.
One other thing, Mr. Speaker. There is also the case of another liberal candidate whose choice of words was even worse in a way, since he used the word "sedition" and that member, who is here today, has not been
repudiated by the other candidate, Jean Chretien. Jean Chretien stated that not everybody is a criminal, leading to believe that some people are. I want-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask for the co-operation of hon. members in a difficult situation. We have procedural difficulties.
I must say to the hon. minister that this is becoming a debate which has no procedural basis whatsoever.


Mr. Speaker:: One moment, please. I have been listening with much interest to the comments of the Hon. Minister, because this is a concern. This is all very eloquent, very emotional, very intelligent. It is not appropriate however to mention many others.
I would invite you to please continue, but at this stage it possibly is time to conclude your remarks.


Lucien Bouchard: I defer, Mr. Speaker. Let me conclude my remarks concernings the hon. member's comments.
It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that everyone will refrain from making that kind of comments, which revive memories that are unfortunately too recent and might rekindle ashes that only a true reconciliation can dampen. An honourable and enthusiastic reconciliation. And I emphasize honourable, because a people demands respect! And enthusiastic, because a people needs hope!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, on a matter of privilege!


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a matter of privilege concerning the comments made by the hon. member for York-South-Weston where he referred to the oath of allegiance to the Queen. He questioned the validity of the oath made by all those who propose a different form of federalism, a new political contract, and who in fact-


Louis Plamondon: On a matter of privilege, Mr. Speaker!
April 25, 1990


Mr. Speaker:: Please! I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, but this is not a matter of privilege. It maybe a matter of debate with your colleague, but it is not a matter of privilege.


Louis Plamondon: Indeed! Indeed! A matter of privilege!


Mr. Speaker:: Tabling of documents. The hon. minister. [Translation]


Louis Plamondon: No, no! I have a matter of privilege! [English]


Mr. Speaker:: Tabling of documents.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government responses to 16 petitions.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to extend on behalf of all members of this House our sympathy to Captain Hollis Tucker's family, following a CF-18 crash last Sunday on Vancouver Island.
I would also like to take this opportunity to extend our condolences, on behalf of the House, to Captain Kirk Leuty's family following a tragic CF-18 accident last week in Germany, and to say to their comrades that we understand their loss of good friends. We extend our sympathy to them.
As a result of these accidents, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I ordered a 48-hour suspension of all CF-18
Routine Proceedings
operational training activity. At that time I said I would inform the House and my colleagues as to what had come about in that 48-hour time period.
This measure was to allow our senior Air Force commanders time to assess the situation and, during this period of time, do an intensive assessment by commanders at all levels of our fighter operations has been conducted.
Pursuant to this assessment and in the absence of an exact determination of the causes of recent accidents, the Air Commander has modified training materials and procedures, exercise scenarios, flight envelopes-for example, the altitude limitations, the air speed, and so on-to reinforce the safety aspects of the safety/realism equation.
Based on these changes, I have accepted the recommendation of my military commanders that the return to routine tasking and operation commence as air crew are briefed on these new measures. These briefings will conclude this week, and I expect that routine tasking will begin next week.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, I join the Minister of National Defence, also on behalf of all members of this House, in extending our sympathy to the families of Captain Hollis Tucker and Captain Kirk Leuty, and indeed, to the families of all the CF-18 pilots who have lost their lives in the line of duty in the service of their country.
Our Canadian military won in war the reputation of being professional, a reputation that they fiercely protect and unquestionably maintain in peace. It is that reputation and a continuing trust in their professional conduct and judgment that allows this side of the House to appreciate the Defence Minister's statement.
That statement, as I understand it, is that, although an exact determination of the cause of recent accidents has not been found, with restrictions and appropriate briefings, including special emphasis on the safety/combat realism equation, routine taskings will begin next week. Nevertheless, I enjoin the minister to continue to pursue vigorously a "tiger-team" approach to finding the cause of these tragic accidents and to make the results public in a timely manner.
I think it is appropriate to inject a thought at this point in time. What a society gets from its armed forces is

April 25, 1990
Routine Proceedings
exactly what it asks for-nothing more and nothing less. What it asks for tends to be a reflection of what it is.
When a country looks at its fighting force and what it does, it is really looking into a mirror. If the mirror is a true one, the reflection it sees there will be its own. It is within the context of this principle, and without prejudice to the follow-on investigations that may follow or any other further restrictions that may be placed on the CF-18 aircraft, that guides our response to this very sensitive and important issue.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Madam Speaker, I, too, on behalf of my party and all members of the House, wish to extend our sincerest condolences to the families of Captain Hollis Tucker and Captain Kirk Leuty. It is very sad and tragic that in training, whether it be the the Air Command, Army or Maritime Command, from time to time there are casualties, some of them the extreme casualty of death.
However, we do have a responsibility in this Chamber to make absolutely certain that everything is done to minimize those tragic incidents. I commend the minister for his 48-hour moratorium. I do question, however, whether in 48 hours enough information could be obtained to permit him, not to lift the moratorium, but at least to allow routine flying to recommence with that particular airplane. However, he has information from his senior officers and staff. Obviously, he is satisfied at this point that routine training flights will not jeopardize the lives of those other pilots who are flying. I would, however, stress that there is always an element of danger, particularly in such a sophisticated plane as the CF-18.
What I would like to see is a full, public inquiry. We live in an age of information; we are an informational society. People want to know, people have the right to know, and if I can sound crass for a moment, the taxpayers of Canada have a lot of money invested in the Canadian Armed Forces and indeed in those planes that are in the range of $35 million to $37 million each.
I am getting a little tired of the in-house, behind closed doors approach that National Defence usually adopts in its investigations. That is appropriate in wartime or if national security is at stake. However, if it is purely a safety measure, an investigation should be established so that all interested persons, either military
or non-military, have an opportunity to find all the facts and all the information as they were presented.
Finally, I find it difficult to accept that the CF-18s should continue to practice low-level tactical flying exercises related to such things as the follow-on force attack and the pursuit of cruise missiles at a time when we are making every effort to wind down what used to be called the cold war. By "we" I mean our country, the United States, certainly Europe, and the Eastern Bloc. I see no practical purposes served in those particular simulated low-level tactical flights in view of the high risk involved in terms of lives being lost at this time.
I hope that the minister will see fit to open up the inquiry somewhere down the road in the not too distant future so that we all may benefit from the information and the input that goes into that inquiry.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Saint-Denis.


Marcel Prud'homme: Madam Speaker, I would like to give the House notice that at the first opportunity I wish to raise a question of privilege with the Speaker concerning the exchange that took place earlier between the hon. member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) and other members. This is my first opportunity to give notice. I am not giving it in writing but I am notifying the House, because I want to carefully review the exchange that took place. In my opinion, the procedure was flawed. I want to go over it and notify you today that if I conclude that I have a question of privilege, I will raise it at the earliest opportunity-I have served notice.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The Chair has taken note.


Mr. Champagne (Champlain):: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Champagne) on the same point of order.


Michel Champagne: Madam Speaker, I also submitted a question of privilege to the Speaker this morning. Unfortunately, I did not indicate the subject on which I wished to speak and the Speaker refused to recognize my question of privilege. I too think that we
April 25, 1990

need more details on this question, because I think that my right-


Louis Plamondon: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Richelieu (Mr. Plamondon) on a point of order.


Louis Plamondon: Madam Speaker, on the same question raised by the two previous speakers. Two days ago when we were commenting on the statement made by the hon. member for York South-Weston, I was given the floor but Mr. Speaker interrupted me to say that, the hon. member being absent, I would be recognized after he would have had a chance to explain himself. Well, the hon. member has had his say but I was not recognized even though I had advised the Chair that I wanted to continue the remarks I had begun Monday when the hon. member was absent.
My rights as a member have been breached. I do not accept the decision of the Chair and I denounce its decision concerning the other 20-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I think we are arguing a point which has been settled a moment ago. The hon. member for Saint-Denis rose on a point which I think was different from the one that had just been settled. Perhaps the hon. member for Richelieu would want to go over what he has just said and reconsider some of his remarks because I do not think he wanted to question a decision made by the Chair earlier this afternoon.
So I think the best thing to do right now is to stop entertaining questions of privilege and points of order since these are not points of order anyway. In my opinion, there is not legitimate point of order. We will proceed with the daily routine of business. I see the hon. member-


Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton -Stans-tead):: If we cannot speak here, where can we do so?
If we are not allowed to speak in the House of Commons, where can we go to speak?


Mrs. Venne:: On a question of privilege, Madam Speaker.
Routine Proceedings


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Is the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead rising on a point of order?


François Gérin: Yes, thank you, Madam Speaker. I want to explain that the House of Commons is, I think, the only place where members can express their views. Whenever we rise on a question of privilege, the Chair asks us what we want to say. And if 20 members of this House wish to speak, they should at least be asked what they want to talk about. I support all my colleagues in this regard. I myself rose on a question of privilege Monday. I agreed that the debate be adjourned until Tuesday, then Wednesday. After other members spoke in this House, the Speaker probably thought that nobody else wanted the floor. Had he realized that others wanted to speak, he would obviously have given them the floor. I myself was about to speak. Members of the House of Commons cannot be muzzled like this.
I think that, even if we take a half hour to allow members who want to do so to briefly express their views, we would simply be complying with basic democratic principles. Otherwise, it means that the Chair has decided to ignore questions of privilege and points of order that members want to raise and to arbitrarily resume another debate. If that is the case, there is nothing else for us to do here in this House and we should simply get up and leave.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have just had a chance to refer to the record of Hansard for April 23, and the Speaker was quite clear in indicating that he would hear other members take part in the debate.
The Speaker's ruling today was also very clear. He found, after the intervention of the member for York South-Weston, that there was not a valid question of privilege raised by the the member for York South-Weston. That is the Speaker's ruling.
There may well be another question as to whether or not members who heard from the Speaker that they would have an opportunity to participate in the debate would be, in fact, allowed that opportunity. I think, Madam Speaker, that it is difficult for you to adjudicate this matter sitting in the chair, but I am sure that the matter will be brought to the attention of Mr. Speaker directly. It might be in the interests of order and debate

April 25, 1990
Routine Proceedings
in the House if all members of the House would accept that there is a debate which we can all understand with regard to the words that were uttered by Mr. Speaker Fraser in which he stated, as reported at page 10529 of Hansard:
During the debate, of course, all other members will have a chance
to make themselves heard.
It may be that some members would want to raise that matter directly with Mr. Speaker when he is here, but I think it would be in the interests of orderly debate that we not pursue that matter now.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: On the same point, the hon. member for Saint-Denis.


Marcel Prud'homme: On this point, Madam Speaker, just to have a good understanding, I would say that I entirely agree with the right hon. minister. That is exactly why I knew that a multiplicity of colleagues were ready to rise. It was obvious, unless one did not have a feeling of the House. One does not need to be here long to have a feeling of the House and I had a feeling. I was well informed that many members were going to rise on this question.
That is why I did not want to participate in the debate today, but reflect upon it tonight. However, I want to reserve my right at the first opportunity. The rules are clear that one must rise at the first opportunity. Everybody sees me here so therefore this is the first opportunity-
I totally agree with the right hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs that a day of reflection is exactly what we need. We may all be in agreement tomorrow not to pursue it any further or, after discussion with the Speaker, we may be in agreement that we would like to pursue the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I would like to thank the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis for their contribution in this most difficult situation.
I have listened to the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead and to the Hon. Member for Richelieu, and I must come to the following conclusion: a few days ago, the Chair, having heard the question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead, decided to wait until the other member involved in the situation would be in the House before listening to what other Hon. Members had to say.
Today, the hon. member was present, he stated his case and explained the statements attributed to him.
The Speaker then heard a remark made by the Environment Minister which he felt quite probably reflected the interpretation and the feelings of most of the hon. members who now wish to be heard.
That is why I have refused at this time to re-open the case and deal again with this issue, and I think that all hon. members will understand that I had really no choice.
I suggest, therefore, that we continue with Routine Proceedings.


Marcel Prud'homme: Fine: we are at peace again!



STRIKING COMMITTEE


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary-West):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the thirty-seventh report of the Striking Committee.


PETITIONS
Hon. Chas L. Caccia (Davenport):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present today a petition on behalf of several Ontario residents. This is-

-with respect to a Canadian citizen, Mr. Yih-Sheh Leo, who was arrested unlawfully and sentenced to 10 months imprisonment for exercising his right to return to his native land and is currently under indictment in Taiwan.
This petition is duly signed according to the rules of this House and I submit it on their behalf.
April 25, 1990


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for Science):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to support and table in the House this third petition which, together with the two previous ones, carry 25,000 names of people asking the House to step in before the Privy Council with a view to making it possible for Mrs. Annette Proulx to be granted the Royal Pardon, has been held at the Maison Gomin in my own riding for the past 11 years.
The people feel that Mrs. Proulx has paid her debt to society and that she should be pardoned on highly humanitarian grounds because of her advanced age. I should like to mention that Mrs. Proulx will be 75 years old on May 3, 1990.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present petitions from residents of the constituency of Etobicoke North. Pursuant to Standing Order 36, they have been certified correct as to form and content.
The residents who have signed these petitions are deeply concerned about the impact on the environment of the proposed expansion of Pearson International Airport in Toronto. The noise and other forms of pollution of the past may be increased by the expansion of the airport.
The petitioners urge upon the government several measures to help ensure that this does not happen.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in this House to present a petition signed by numerous residents of Kingston and the Islands who object to the cuts this government proposed in the recent budget that will increase the cost of housekeeping services to Canada's veterans and will increase the charges to veterans who are hospitalized or who are in special care.
Routine Proceedings
They call upon Parliament to reject these vicious, nasty cuts that the government is proposing to the persons who have served their country in wartime.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present a petition regarding the goods and services tax. While we recognize it is before the Liberal-dominated Senate at the moment, I assume that it will be coming back to the House of Commons at some time in the future.
The petitioners humbly pray that the Parliament of Canada takes advantage of the opportunity when it presents itself and stops the goods and services tax, in other words, that a sufficient number of people in the House vote against the goods and services tax if the Senate does not do that.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians who would like to make this Government come to its senses, through the democratic process of a petition they asked me to table their names, in the matter of the goods and services tax the government proposes to implement in January of 1991.
Those people would like to raise the matter again, as we have done for a number of months, and tell the House of Commons that they hope, they pray, they very much hope the Senate will stop this government's tax folly that will increase the burden of the poor, the have-nots and the small business sector.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I, too, have the pleasure to present a petition under Standing Order 36 signed by several petitioners from various communities in Ontario. They call upon Parliament to reject the current proposal for a goods and services tax and to reform the taxation system so that there is an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
[Stage Direction]
April 25, 1990
Government Orders
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, Question No. 261 will be answered today.


Mr. Keyes: Did the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety retain a consultant firm in order to assist them in the development of their privatization plan and, if so (a) what sums were paid in consultant fees (b) by whom?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Labour and Minister of State (Transport)):: The firm of Price Waterhouse was retained by the Canadian Centre for Occupational Elealth and Safety to assist in the development of a Business Plan for the period 1990-1991 to 1994-1995. Consulting fees in the amount of $85,000.00 were paid by the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I ask that all Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I have a Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers that has been standing on the Order Paper since last October.
I have asked the parliamentary secretary to look into it. He told me two or three months ago that he would. Of course, I know that he has great influence with government departments in that when he makes inquiries,
people move and leaves shake. It appears in this case the shaking leaves and the buzzing telephone lines have been insufficient.
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could use his very good offices in an effort to expedite the production of the documents that are so reasonably requested in this motion that has been sitting on the Order Paper for so many months. Really, the delay seems inexorable in this case.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend has just discovered the full extent of my influence. I can tell him that I will attempt, once again, to revisit his particular motion and see what we can do to proceed with it.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I wish to inform the House that by reason of the statement by minister, Government Orders will be extended by nine minutes.



GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES RESTRAINT ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resume from Tuesday, April 24, 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 now read a second time and refer to a legislative committee; and the amendment of Ms. Langan.
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, today I rise to take part in the debate on Bill C-69. This legislation covers many areas and it will have a very negative effect on the province of Prince Edward Island, especially with the transfer payments. The freezing of transfer payments means that Prince Edward Island will lose about $13 million over the next two years. That is the money that is given to the provinces to help education and health.
However, today I am here to discuss and debate Bill C-69, as the party critic for Energy, Mines and Resources. This legislation, among other things, eliminates the Canadian Exploration Incentive Program, known as CEIP. The CEIP issue combines two issues that are very
April 25, 1990

important to me: mining policy and regional development policy.
Cancelling CEIP without any notice to the industry, without any consultation with the people involved, reminds me of this government's decision to close CFB Summerside. It was about one year ago, April 27 last year, that the government announced the closure of CFB Summerside, which is close to my riding of Malpe-que, P.E.I.
The people of Summerside, in fact all Islanders, are feeling the effects that decision and will be feeling it for some time.
This government must realize that it cannot make major decisions that have sweeping effects on whole regions, such as the decision to close CFB Summerside, without considering alternatives and consulting the people involved.
This government's lack of planning has left an entire region of my province in limbo. People have been waiting for approximately one year for a firm federal commitment of jobs. For the past year, the people of Summer-side and surrounding area have been working hard to save the base and to keep the economic security of their region intact. These people deserve nothing short of total admiration and praise from this House, for they are working against a government which does not plan ahead, which has not fulfilled its year-old commitment for jobs, and which, for all intents and purposes, does not listen to the people of my province.
The government must start to plan ahead with and for the people who will be affected by its decisions.
In the case of the cancellation of CEIP, the Canadian Exploration Incentive Program, as in the case of CFB Summerside, this government offered no alternatives and it failed to consult with the people involved. Furthermore, it failed to honour a well publicized commitment that it would give six months' notice of any change in this program. I will deal with the cancellation of this program more fully in a moment.
First, I want to describe the importance of the mining industry to Canada and the world. In terms of worldwide production, Canada is the third largest producer of minerals in the world. We are the world's foremost exporter. In fact, the mineral industry exports about 80
Government Orders
per cent of its production. In 1988, mineral production was valued at approximately $21 billion.
Before these minerals can be exported, they must be found and then processed, which provides the Canadian economy with about 150,000 direct jobs and many more indirect jobs. Some 120 communities, mainly in the north and remote regions, depend on mining.
The mining industry, mining communities, and the government all realize that mineral exploration is a very risky business. It requires enormous capital investment. Prospectors and developers are at the mercy of our country's geology and the world market. It is that high-level risk in mineral exploration that makes conventional investment very difficult to find. That is why governments over the years have provided various programs and allowances to offset that relatively high risk. CEIP, the program that has just been cancelled, and the Mining Exploration Depletion Allowance were both designated with this in mind.
The energy minister, in a speech to the annual convention of Prospectors and Developers Association in 1988, had this to say regarding the two programs, CEIP and MEDA, and the mining sector: "they make the sector more competitive as an investment vehicle. In terms of investment vehicles there is nothing to match flow-through shares." That is what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said in March, 1989.
About one year after he made that statement, the government cancelled the program, which was the only mining exploration incentive program in Canada.
Flow-through shares have been around for a long while, in fact, since 1954. It was not until the introduction of the MEDA program by the Liberal government in 1983 that they were widely used by junior, or smaller, mining companies. This program was started in 1983 and was a very popular program. It was started by the Liberal government of the day, it was popular with the industry and yet this government eliminated it in 1987.
In 1988 the government openly recognized the importance of supporting these junior companies when it introduced the CEIP program. It recognized that the government had to act to maintain a healthy level of exploration in the Canadian mining industry. In May of 1988 CEIP was announced. Its purpose was to help these junior companies raise the equity they require, with the

April 25, 1990
Government Orders
hope that in turn they would do the exploration and the development that Canada needed.
The program actually began in 1989.1 know there were problems in the beginning with the complexity of the program. It took some time before the industry was able to work through all the complicated arrangements. Once they did, they started to use it. In fact, of the $750 million spent in 1989 on mineral exploration, approximately one-half, or $375 million, was generated by flowthrough shares.
Yet this government claims that CEIP was not that popular with junior mining companies. If the program was not fully utilized in 1989, it is largely because the industry was still becoming familiar with the complexity of the program. They were learning how to take the best advantage of it.
There are other reasons why 1989 exploration figures are lower than 1988. First of all, we had the effects of the elimination of MEDA. Then we had the investors who were trying to cope with the aftermath of tax reform. Of course, we had the 1987 stock market crash. The government cancelled this program after one year, citing apathy on the part of the industry as the reason. That is bad policy and it also shows bad faith. The cancellation of CEIP means that junior companies will lack sufficient investor incentives to raise the capital they need to explore.
The government has failed to provide any alternatives to this program, as was the case with the closing of CFB Summerside. It provided no alternatives and did not consult with the people involved. What we have today in the mining industry in 1990 is the same situation we had in 1988 when the government announced this program. At that time the existing 100 per cent write-off was not enough to raise the necessary money for mining exploration because it is a risky business. It was not enough then and it is not enough today.
What we are likely going to see is a decline in Canada's base metal reserves. We are also seeing the end of mineral development agreements such as the one between Ottawa and the province of Ontario. The timing of the cancellation of the program could not have been worse. But it is worse when one considers the fact that the government had promised that any changes in the program would follow after six months' notice and that
the industry would be notified six months ahead of any changes. This did not happen.
The government promised it as recently as December, 1989. In an Energy Department publication called "CEIP Explained", it stated: "A minimum of six months' notice will be given prior to any change (in CEIP)". But less than five months after that promise the government cancelled CEIP without ever notifying the industry that it was being cancelled.
I think it is important that hon. members know what people in the industry are saying about the cancellation of this program. The President of the British Columbia and Yukon Chamber of Mines stated: "The (loss of CEIP) is going to have a dramatic effect on the exploration by small companies". The Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada said: "The cancellation of CEIP will render flow-through shares unmarketable, and the junior mining sector will collapse".
Those are quotes by people in the industry that certainly show the seriousness of cancelling this very important program to the mining industry in Canada. At the very best there will be a real loss of exploration incentive and that will lead to a decline in exploration and development of base metals and other mineral reserves. Such a decline will lead to fewer exports and fewer and lower export revenues.
What we will probably export, however, is not minerals but jobs, because there is a world-wide demand for minerals which will be easily met by other countries who will be eager to meet the demand.
Our reserves are already falling. From 1981 to 1988, even with the incentive provided under MEDA, Canada's reserves of base metals such as copper, zinc, nickel and lead registered declines ranging from 20 per cent to 34 per cent. Between 1988 and 1989 lead reserves did increase about 4 per cent and zinc by 2 per cent. At the same time, copper and nickel reserves fell by 2 per cent and 5 per cent respectively.
An article that appeared this week in the Ottawa Citizen quotes an energy department official as saying: "We're not out of the woods yet in regards to replenishing our reserves". Officials said any progress we are making now is far from enough to maintain our production into the 1990s. In fact, the Department of Energy estimates that simply replenishing Canada's mineral
April 25, 1990

reserves-I am not talking about expanding them, I am simply talking about holding the line-will require an annual expenditure of at least $1.3 billion a year.
In 1989 about half of that amount of about $750 million was spent in exploration. The Prospectors and Developers Association estimates that the total for 1990 will probably fall .to about $610 million. It expects exploration in 1991 to fall even further. It is readily apparent that Canada needs to give some kind of assistance for the mining sector to maintain a healthy level of base metal and other reserves. Certainly, that requires a federal commitment.
Madam Speaker, I know my time is running out. In talking about this whole mining area and the cancellation of CEIP which will mean less money going to remote northern areas, that there is a very human element involved here. Small northern and remote towns in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and elsewhere depend on a healthy mining industry. Certainly that is going to suffer as the result of the loss of CEIP.
I think this government's action contrasts sharply with the tradition of government support of the mining industry in the country, a tradition the Liberal party helped continue and one to which this party remains committed.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Malpeque on her most interesting speech.
At the outset of her address she indicated that the passage of this particular bill would be very detrimental to people in her riding in Prince Edward Island. For the benefit of hon. members, I wonder if she could expand on that particular point and tell us in what way the bill is damaging in that part of Canada.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for the question. I am always pleased to talk about my province of Prince Edward Island.
Bill C-69 will have very negative effects in P.E.I. I think the area which will cause the greatest damage is the freeze on transfer payments, that is the Established Program Financing, money given to the provinces to look after health services and education.
Government Orders
Prince Edward Island will end up with $13 million less in 1990-91. What does that mean to our education and health system on Prince Edward Island? If the provincial government is getting less money from the federal government, it has either to raise taxes or to cut services. What the federal government has done is transfer part of the debt onto the provincial governments.
The government has to cut services and it has to raise taxes. If it cuts services, the Government of Prince Edward Island will have to cut funding to educational institutions. Tuition fees may have to be higher. Certainly, that is something that the students on Prince Edward Island are very concerned about.
Two weeks ago, I was pleased to take part in a demonstration of Prince Edward Island students where several hundred had gathered to express their concern about government cutbacks in transfer payments, because of a number of things: the transfer payments, the GST, and the cutback to the Challenge Program this year which means that fewer university students are going to have jobs this summer. The students are also upset about the student loan program. They are concerned about the transfer payments, because it may mean that the quality of education will go down. It may mean higher tuition fees. They are concerned about the GST because, for the first time, we are going to have a tax on learning. It will mean 7 per cent on books, supplies and services. If they get their hair cut, they are going to have to pay 7 per cent on that.
It is at a time when students these days are feeling really strapped, because certainly there are real problems with the student loan program. Here again, the government comes in with 7 per cent and puts a tax on learning.
It is also going to affect health care. Are the sick and disabled in the province of Prince Edward Island going to have to suffer? I certainly would hope not, but when the federal government is passing less money to the province, the province will have to increase the tax or cut services. If it cuts services, that is certainly going to affect the people who are sick and disabled.
We have the transfer payments. The hon. member asked me was how the legislation was going to affect the province of Prince Edward Island. I talked about the transfer payments, and their effect on education and

April 25, 1990
Government Orders
health, and about the students and their concern with the GST.
There is also a lot of concern by small business about the GST. We all know it is a very complex taxation that is coming in. A lot of small businesses are going to have to buy new equipment, such as new cash registers. They are going to have to have new accounting systems. I talked to the owner of a restaurant in my district of Malpeque last week. He was talking to me about the GST. He said: "Look, I run a restaurant. It is a very marginal business. I really cater to the working poor. They come in once or twice a week and buy a hot hamburger or a hot chicken sandwich." He said: "When that 7 per cent comes in, my clients are not going to have any money to buy a hot hamburger because that money is going to be gone on the 7 per cent to pay for the children's clothing, their haircuts, or whatnot." He went to say: "On top of that, for the money that I do take in, I am going to have to keep track of all the tax and submit that tax to the government every so often. I am going to have to get a new accounting system and a new cash register. I might as well pack it up and go work for somebody else".
That attitude has been expressed to me several times in the riding. Small businesses are really feeling the policies of the government, policies which are not helping small business in any way. I would think that the government should be helping small business because it is small business that provides the jobs. As we know, it has been estimated that 7 out of 10 new jobs-in fact, I read somewhere where it was claimed to be 9 out of 10-that are created in the country are created by small business. I would think that the government would be doing everything possible to encourage small business instead of bringing in policies like the GST which discourage people and make people think about getting out of business, such as that restaurant owner in Malpeque whom I talked about.
These things affect the province-the equalization payments and the announced closure of CFB Summer-side which is going to take possibly $50 million out of the economy and for which the government has today provided no firm commitment for jobs. People in Sum-merside have been waiting for approximately a year, but there is no commitment. The government has left the
people of the area in limbo. They do not know whether an industry will be coming in to provide a job for them or whether they should think of moving off the island and selling their homes. It is the uncertainty. It has created a lot of-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but the time for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Surrey North.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Madam Speaker, I rise to talk about this bill because I think it is one of the pieces of legislation that is going to have a profound long-term effect on Canada.
Canada is a country that has a few veiy distinct characteristics, one of which has been our approach to basic services for people, services such as education, social services, income support programs, and health care. Particularly when we compare ourselves to the United States, one of the ways in which there is a tremendous distinction is the fact that the federal government has always had a role and responsibility in these areas. Its responsibility and role has been more than just providing funding. Canada has developed a system on a national basis that is known as our safety net.
In terms of people in dire difficulties, those with health problems or illness, loss of income, who need other types of social services or people seeking education, particularly at the post-secondary level, this bill is the starting of the erosion of those fundamental services. I think that we must recognize that this is the logical follow-up of the free trade agreement. This is the beginning of the level playing-field. This is the beginning of the erosion of our social services and health care system and all the things that the government unilaterally denied were under attack in the free trade deal.
The government said our social services were untouchable and now it brings in this type of legislation. It has already dealt a severe blow to our unemployment insurance program. It said: "Of course, our national health care schemes are not under attack." Now, it brings in this type of legislation which clearly is intended to erode these programs on a national basis. One could spend all one's time talking about the impact that these reductions in funds had on any one of these program areas.
April 25, 1990

The provincial premiers have stated that this type of unilateral changing of federal-provincial fiscal programs is tremendously detrimental to provinces and the provinces' abilities to provide services. The province of British Columbia is facing a deficit this year of $650 million. It is not in a position simply to pick up and replace the money being eroded by this legislation.
I would like to spend a few minutes looking at the whole business of the Canada Assistance Plan. I think it is important when we talk about national unity in the country to look at the part the Canada Assistance Plan has played in Canada in developing those kinds of social safety nets that have held the country together allowed people to move within Canada, from one region to another, and still be entitled to benefits.
The Canada Assistance Plan sets out very clearly in its preamble that: "Whereas the Parliament of Canada recognizes the provision of adequate assistance to, in respect of persons in need, and the prevention and removal of the cause of poverty and dependence on public assistance are the concerns of all Canadians". That is what the preamble says. It is the concern of the Canadian Parliament, not the provinces, that the focus is on, not only providing for people in need, but removal of the causes of poverty and dependence on public assistance. It goes on to say that: "It is desirous of encouraging the further development and extension of assistance in welfare service programs throughout Canada."
There are two fundamental parts to the Canada Assistance Act. One deals with income maintenance programs and the other deals with welfare services. There are a number of things that we should look at. With the income assistance program, the Canada Assistance Plan unified the country. Prior to the introduction of the Canada Assistance Plan, we used to have all kinds of things like residential requirements for someone wanting to draw welfare or income assistance. Municipalities were administering income assistance programs. They had to chase around to try to find out where someone was a resident because they would be held responsible for the cost of income assistance.
The Canada Assistance Plan was used as a mechanism of saying to people in Canada: "You have the ability to
Government Orders
move from one area of the country in order to pursue jobs, to pursue a better lifestyle, or to be near family, and you are still entitled to receive income assistance". The costs would be picked up and shared between the provinces and the federal government.
It also did away with the concept of categorical assistance. Assistance must be granted based on need, and not based on some arbitrary determination that you are just and worthy, as under the Elizabethan poor laws. It was based on the fundamental concept that income assistance was to be granted to people who were in need.
Included in the Canada Assistance Plan was the right to appeal. It was a right to appeal which said that a person was not being granted this as a charity but as a right, with the legal recourse of an appeal procedure and, if necessary, access to the courts.
The concept of a national program of income support based on legislation and a right to appeal is diametrically opposed to the charity style of income maintenance programs found in the United States. It is an area in which Canada can be justly proud. This piece of legislation, which is curtailing expenditures in the three largest provinces, is going to affect well over half of all income recipients in Canada.
This is at a time when we have 1.2 million children living in poverty. This is at a time when, in the province of British Columbia, income assistance rates for a mother with two children allow her to feed her children for only two and a half weeks each month. She must depend on other sources of income, on food banks, on neighbours and even on schools for the rest of the month.
In the city of Vancouver and in my own municipality schools are having to feed children. That is not the intent of educational institutions in this country. Because of the cut-backs by this government and provincial governments, particularly governments like the Socred government, schools are having to provide basic necessities.
The Canada Assistance Plan under its assistance provisions also provides other types of services to people who are in need or who are on income assistance. It provides basic medical care, all types of medical care, including access to prescriptions and specialized medical care. It also allows for rehabilitation and getting people

April 25, 1990
Government Orders
who are on income assistance back into the workforce where they can become independent.
It allows for training programs to train people for jobs, for jobs that we often have difficulty filling in this country. Some of the better programs have trained people to work as care aids in hospitals or in long-term care facilities, as well as to work in day care centres.
Sometimes we use our income assistance provisions not only to help people to become independent, but to provide much needed resources in the community.
Other parts of the Canada Assistance Plan refer to basic child welfare services. These are protection services to investigate children who have been abused and neglected, and to provide counselling services for those children or, in extreme cases, alternative living arrangements.
In the last number of years Canadian society has become more and more aware of the inadequacy of our services to children. Basic child welfare services are often tremendously strained. We have just begun to understand the long term effects on people who have been involved in abuse, particularly sexual abuse.
One of the factors that emerges continually when we begin to examine many of the horrendous stories of sexual abuse is that many of the adults who are involved in abuse were themselves abused as children. We can all sit back and say how deplorable their behaviour is, and we can condemn them. But in many of the cases we should be condemning ourselves. These are the children who, if they had been provided the proper counselling services 15 years ago, if our child welfare services had been adequate, would not be the adults now engaged in abusive conduct.
I have worked in social services and corrections all my life. I have been involved in juvenile courts, juvenile street programs and juvenile prostitution. I have also been involved with teachers. There are very few Grade 1, 2 and 3 teachers who cannot tell you who are the children in trouble, which families are having difficulty, or who needs the services that are provided under the Canada Assistance Plan. They will tell you that if these services are not provided now, society is going to pay more in the future. This, in my 25 years, is something I have watched, regrettably.
I have known children who have grown up to be notorious criminals who are serving 25 or 30 years in jail. I worked with them at a time when it was said: "Let's provide more resources to this family now. It will cost us maybe $4,000 or $5,000 to provide proper counselling services, or day care so that the mother has a break, or drug counselling that is necessary to make sure that a person does not become a chronic addict". Yet the money was not provided.
Now we pay $50,000 a year to keep that person in a federal penitentiary. We will pay an equal amount to keep that person in a mental hospital. We will pay money to keep that person's family on income assistance.
The services that are provided under the Canada Assistance Plan are basic services. We are not talking about frills. Under the Canada Assistance Plan it defines what are welfare services. It states that welfare services mean: "-services having as their object the lessening, removal or prevention of the cause and effects of poverty, child neglect or dependence on public assistance". Then it lists some of the services.
The general thrust of the Canada Assistance Plan is to deal with child neglect and poverty. I cannot understand why a government would attack such fundamental programs. Its members stand up and say: "We want to deal with drug addiction. We want to deal with family violence. We want to deal with child poverty, child abuse and child neglect". That is what they say, but then they bring in legislation that is the first step to the total destruction of Canada's system of economic underpinning to provide such services on a national basis.
Other services that are provided are rehabilitation services, adoption services, homemaker services, day care, community development services, consulting and research. These are the fundamental services that form the structure of Canada's safety net.
I come back to the point that this legislation is not just legislation dealing with a restriction of transfer payments to the provinces. It is the beginning of an attack on our fundamental services. Obviously, it flows out of the free trade deal by which we must harmonize our social programs with those of the United States.
April 25, 1990

In the time I have left I want to talk a bit about one of the other sections covered in this legislation. I refer to the Established Programs Financing. This bill is attacking two of the other fundamental structures of Canadian society, that is health care and post-secondary education.
The province of British Columbia is in a crisis in health care. We do not have adequate health care facilities. We have a shortage of health staff.
In my municipality it is more than just a crisis, it is an absolute disaster. Surrey now has 1.67 acute care beds per 100,000 people. If you take out people who should be in long-term care facilities, that figure is reduced to 1.3. The target for the province is 3.3 beds per 100,000. The average in British Columbia is 3.8 beds per 100,000. In the City of Vancouver it is 6.4. We have less than one-third of the hospital beds that we need.
What is the impact on my community and my constituents? In closing, I will point out what the impact is. Nearly 50 per cent of the people in that municipality have to travel elsewhere for basic health care services. There are now nearly 3,000 people on the waiting list for beds in the hospital.
This government chooses to attack this type of program, simply making it impossible for fast-growing municipalities like Surrey to ever catch up in providing basic health care to the residents who so desperately need it.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-69, which follows from the budget tabled in February. That budget, hon. members will remember, had many great advantages, among which was the fact that for the first time in many years, no increases whatsoever in taxes were announced. I think it is important to mention it, because we too often hear about the budgets the federal government has tabled since 1984 and all the tax increases they contained. Unfortunately, we do not insist enough on the fact that this governement was able to introduce a budget with no tax increase for the first time in many, many years, after tabling in 1988 a budget providing for a reduction in income tax for low-income individuals and an increase in corporate tax. Also, as you will remember, we introduced a minimum tax for high-income Cana-
Government Orders
dians who were legally using tax shelters. This year, even if they still benefit from tax shelters, they do have to pay their fair share of tax.
That budget must be looked at as a whole, and Bill C-69 is part of it. Our fiscal policy dates from 1984. You will recall that, in 1984, when the Conservative government was elected, there was a $200 billion debt left by our friends opposite. The $200 billion national debt was financed by borrowings and interest payments were huge.
But even more serious, Madam Speaker, in 1984, the federal government, the Government of Canada, was spending each year $16 billion more than what it was getting in tax revenue. The government of the day was therefore running an annual deficit of $16 billions in program spending.
This year, this Conservative government now in office will spend $9 billion less than it brings in, the amounts payable in interests excluded once again. That is a $25 billion turnaround over a period of five years, Madam Speaker.
That is why we can say, Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Finance did rightly, that in four years from now, our annual deficit which adds to our national debt every year, will be reduced by half. That is important, because it shows that we are finally on the right course to bring down our annual deficit to zero, for one thing. The moment that is achieved, we will finally start-I hear my colleague laugh, Madam Speaker, but it is a fact-paying not our debts but those left us in 1984 by that government who was spending, I repeat, $16 billion more money yearly that it brought in.
You can understand, as do all of those Canadians who are listening, that if they spend $16,000 more then what they earn, they will eventually end up in an intolerable situation.
Madam Speaker, that is the total picture. Since 1984, it is true that there has been cuts. Since 1984, there has been tax hikes. But, what we must keep in mind, Madam Speaker, is that those cuts made since 1984 account for 70 per cent of the redution of the annual deficit, which was at $39 billion in 1984.
Only 30 per cent of the decifit reduction comes from tax hikes. It is important to mention it. The expenditure control plan tabled in 1990 accounts for 60 per cent of all 1990-1991 government expenditures, which made it

April 25, 1990
Government Orders
possible to save $3 billion the first year and $4 billion the next.
Yet, it should be emphasized that exemptions are provided for under the expenditure control plan. For instance, Old Age Security pensions will not be affected and will continue to increase; the same with the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the family allowances.
The expenditure control plan will not affect the amount received by low income Canadian men and women.
But all the rest will be affected, which means that 60 per cent of total federal expenditures will be reduced under the budget plan tabled in 1990. As you know, Madam Speaker, Bill C-69, which flows from that budget plan, affects transfer payments to provinces. We know there are two important programs that give money to all provinces. There is the established programs financing, which applies to all provinces. Under this program, each province receives a certain sum on a per capita basis. It is a fair and equitable program for all provinces.
The other program that we know, particularly in the province of Quebec, is equalization. Under this program, the federal government gives money to provinces that are considered poorer, in addition to the money they receive under the other program. Those provinces are the Maritimes, Quebec, Manitoba and, some years, Saskatchewan. If you look at the situation since 1984 and up to 1990, the amount paid to the provinces by the federal government has increased, on average, by 6.5 per cent a year. At the same time, other expenditures of the Canadian government have increased only by 3.6 per cent a year. We see, therefore, that the federal government, which has a huge accumulated debt and a deficit just starting to be under control, has transferred annually more money to the provinces that it has spent. Transfers to the provinces, Madam Speaker, will amount this year to $35 billion. A quarter of all the money spent by the Canadian government goes directly to the provinces: $35 billion this year.
We must look at the Canadian reality. Referring to the Canadian government deficit, may be very nice, but if you are a foreign investor, Madam Speaker, and you look at what you would like to do in Canada, you will consider
the Canadian government deficit, and you also will consider the situation in each and every province. And you will find that interests on the debt in provinces eat up an average of 12 cents on each dollar of revenue, that is the amount of interest paid by provinces-12 cents on the dollar. But turning to the Canadian government, the rate is 35 cents on the dollar. Which means the Canadian government, out of each and every revenue dollar, must pay 35 cents in interest not to repay the principal but simply to cover the interests.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: That is because of your incompetence.


Pierre H. Vincent: Madam Speaker, I hear the hon. member opposite make comments. I would like to point out to him, because he should not forget it, that since 1984 the deficit only increased because of interest charges on the debt inherited from the previous Liberal government.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: What nonsense.


Pierre H. Vincent: That is a fact, Madam Speaker. I will do the figures with the hon. member afterward, we will sit down together. He will see that the cost of the increased debt and the cost of the annual deficit amount to the interest on the debt inherited from the Liberal Party in 1984. That is the reality, Madam Speaker. I appreciate this annoys the opposition, but what can I do, they have to be reminded once in a while of the incompetence they showed in government for 20 years.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Those are gratuitous figures!


Pierre H. Vincent: It annoys, Madam Speaker, to hear the truth.


An Hon. Member:: This is because of your incompetence!


Pierre H. Vincent: Madam Speaker, looking at transfers to provinces in 1984-85, under the Established Programs Financing among others.
In 1984-85, the provinces received $14,5 billion from the federal government. In 1989-90, they will receive $20 billion. So, they will receive a lot more money they can spend the way they want. They don't have to account for it to the federal government. On the other hand this government, this Parliament, must report to the Canadian people every time it raises taxes. I think that that major increase of funds is in line with the needs of the provinces but it is also necessary to limit its increase in
April 25, 1990

the face of the astronomical federal debt threatening the future of our nation.
Again and again, opposition members ask for more money, less taxes, and God knows what. But we must face facts and be realistic. Appropriate measures must be taken now so that we do not end up in an absolutely unbearable situation two, three or five years down the road. It is not normal for a country such as ours to be as heavily in debt as it is, considering its population. Steps have been taken since 1984 to ensure that we get back on track. 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 everyone of them, whatever the province they live in, to share in this collective effort, as well as the provincial governments, which have also spent much more than the federal government since 1984. If we look at the rate of increase of their spendings, we see that it is almost double that of the federal government spendings.
There is a certain lack of logic in having the federal government collect taxes from Canadians, take the money, give it without any conditions to the provinces and tighten its belt while the provinces increase their expenditures. I can understand why they spend more because the needs are increasing. But Canada as a country has a debt and we must all work on it together, as individuals, provincial governments, social groups and everyone else, to make Canada less indebted in future and in the hope that one day the debt will be gone and we can do something with the money now being wasted.
Just think that it costs us $35 billion a year in interest. How many programs and organizations could be helped with the $35 billion now being wasted on interest? Again, on a debt left to us by the former government which spent-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: You doubled the debt!


Pierre H. Vincent: -thoughtlessly for 20 years. We are trying to pick up the pieces. We are trying desperately, with everyone's help, to solve this debt problem, because we are accused of doubling the national debt. It is a simple calculation. When we were elected, the debt was $200 billion. Ten per cent of that is $20 billion. Two hundred billion at 10 per cent gives $20 billion in interest we had to pay, not on our debts but on the debts you left.
Government Orders
However, those $20 billion increased the deficit instead of being used to help Canadians. And my colleagues criticized the GST!
Madam Speaker, the present federal sales tax is more than 65 years old. When I was doing my masters degree in tax law more than 10 years ago, our professor said: "This tax is bad for the country! We keep hoping every year the Liberal government will change it". Madam Speaker, the Liberal government at the time never had the political courage to bring about this change.
The GST is a good thing for Canada and for Quebec. At last our industries will be able to get ahead, go outside the country and compete with foreign industries that come and try to sell their goods here. And it will be fair and equitable. It will be fair and equitable for Canadians, including Canadians on low incomes.
Those with an income of $30,000 or less will benefit under the GST, Madam Speaker. They will have more money in their pockets at the end of the year then they had this year.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues on the other side of the House to read a number of articles on the subject that appeared in La Presse, where the figures were given by an experienced journalist, without political overtones. He proved, providing the appropriate figures and examples, that to people with an income of $30,000 or less the meant was a net gain at the end of the year. Those are not my words, Madam Speaker. That is what was said in an article that appeared in La Presse a few weeks ago. I urge my colleagues to read that article. It is very instructive.
Madam Speaker, in concluding, Bill C-69 must be passed as soon as possible. I hope my colleagues across the way will vote in favour of the bill so that we can proceed with the financial and administrative reorganization of the Canada they left us in 1984.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, Bill C-69, which is before the House today, is a devastating indictment of this government. It is a sorry state of affairs that this government, in the name of debt reduction, should devastate two particular areas that

April 25, 1990
Government Orders
have always been considered very sacred in this country. I refer to the areas of health and education.
Bill C-69 is typical of the pass the buck philosophy of the present government. Instead of taking on its responsibilities, it has passed them on to the provinces. This is the third time since this government came into office in 1984 that it has attacked the Establish Programs Financing. Either the provinces will have to raise their taxes or the hospitals and education systems will have to absorb the costs.
The total loss to the provinces over the next five years will be $7.4 billion. If we add the two previous cuts announced by the government, we find that the cumulative reduction in federal contributions from 1986-87 to 1994-95 amounts to $31.1 billion.
On March 24, 1982, the current Minister of Finance said in this House: "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 the arena."
Yet that same member, who is now the Minister of Finance, has brought forward a budget that does exactly those things.
With respect to post-secondary education, the Prime Minister betrayed once again his own promise to have first-class education for our youth. In so doing, he made a mockery of the national task force on education that he himself created.
I quote a statement from the Prime Minister: "This government will carry its fair share of the burden to ensure that all young Canadians receive a first-class education as they confront a world-class challenge." That statement was made by the Prime Minister on August 25, 1989.
Also under Bill C-69, growth under the Canada Assistance Program will be limited. Under CAP the federal and provincial governments share equally in the costs of welfare payments and basic necessities such as food, shelter, clothing, dental care for the poor and essential services for the disabled. This is the first time in the 24-year history of the program that CAP has been limited. Ontario, Alberta and B.C. are the only three provinces to have a limit. Does the government think for one minute that the poor in Ontario are less poor than the poor in Quebec? To me, poor is poor is poor, regardless of which province you come from in this country.
The Canadian Exploration Incentive Program, which provides for a grant of 30 per cent of the cost of resource exploration-mining, oil and gas-financed with flowthrough shares, was cancelled as of budget day. The elimination of CEIP will have a devastating impact on primary exploration in Canada, with junior exploration firms bearing the brunt. We can expect a substantial reduction in mineral exploration at a time when Canada needs to replenish its dwindling base metal reserves. Already in 1989 the amount spent on exploration was down from $1.2 billion in 1988.
This is another broken promise by this government. On May 3, 1988, the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines said: "This rate, 30 per cent, will be guaranteed for two years until the end of 1990, after which the rate maybe adjusted." Can we ever believe anything that the government tells us?
Under Bill C-69 public utilities income tax transfers are frozen. The Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act provides for the transfer to provinces of 95 per cent of the federal income tax collected from certain privately owned electric and gas utilities. Transfers will be frozen for two years at the 1989-90 levels, reducing projected expenditures under the act by $16 million in 1990-91 and $34 million in 1991-92. PUITT was implemented in 1986 and its purpose was 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.
Canadians have every right to be cynical about this government. We in the Liberal party oppose Bill C-69. Interest rates are high, and if this government continues with its present policies more unemployment will be created. Provinces will be less able to cope. The people who are less able to cope, who are the poor, the handicapped and the sick, will suffer the most. The government is asking those people to help reduce the deficit, one which it has doubled since coming into office, while others are getting off scot-free.
This government has lost all sense of propriety and this is a reflection of the extreme limits to which it will go to force its will on the people.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to enter the debate this afternoon on Bill C-69.
April 25, 1990

Bill C-69 looks rather innocuous. It is just a few pages with a nice title on it. It has all the proper logos and the Minister of Finance has his name at the bottom. It really looks very straightforward, very simple.
I suppose in one respect it is very simple. The bill is entitled, "An act to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures". That is another way of saying that this is a bill to dismantle Canada. This is a bill to begin the destruction of what we know as being Canadian. I do not think the title is very accurate. The government missed the boat there. Maybe it should have said that this is the beginning of the end of Canada as we know it act, or this is a bill that begins to undo what Canadians have struggled to achieve for, in some cases, generations. There is a whole set of more appropriate titles than the one given to Bill C-69.
I have listened with interest to the previous speakers, and I can only assume that Conservative members have not visited their constituencies in the last few months because if they had they would know what the people of Canada are saying.
For example, one item in the bill refers to the Canadian Exploration Incentives Program Act. This is a program which for many years provided incentives and encouragement for those people who go prospecting for new mineral deposits. That is what much of the basis of our economy is built on, particularly in British Columbia. Mining is our number two industry. It is second in importance in terms of employment, investment and attracting capital into our part of Canada. But, of course, it depends upon those people who go out and explore.
Exploration companies normally are small companies. They tend to be Canadian-owned companies. They tend to keep their money in Canada, in their communities, and provide employment for people to seek out new mineral deposits and then develop them into potential ore bodies for production. In other words, they are the lifeblood of the mining industry.
The government has decided to take away encouragement, support and incentive for these folks. These are people of whom we as Canadians are proud, because they take those Beaver airplanes up into the north and hike and live in the muskeg and so on. They discover
Government Orders
what has made this country known around the world for its huge mineral deposits and developments.
But the government no longer wants to encourage people to do that. As you know, Madam Speaker, the statistics indicate that mining exploration in Canada has fallen off in the natural gas and oil sectors, as well as in the mining sector. So exploration activity in all of the primary resource areas is falling off because of the high interest rates. The stock markets are also falling so we cannot look to the stock market for a place to raise revenue for exploration.
While the whole bottom is falling out of the exploration business, the government says: "We have a great idea. We are going to cause even more pain. We are going to inflict more suffering on to this critical sector of the economy by pulling out our support". One wonders what on earth would motivate a government at this critical time in the mining industry to make life worse for those people who seek out new mineral deposits.
That is not the worst of it. I find it passing strange when I look through this bill to find that the government has come up with what it thinks is an appropriate idea for the 1990s, and that is to cut back support for young people going into education.
When looking around the world and, in particular, at all European countries, one sees that nations are investing in their young people. They are investing in their universities, colleges, vocational schools, technical schools, and training institutes. They realize that to invest in their young people-and to reinvest in those who are not young people anymore but require new skills to meet the demands of a knowledged-based economy of the 1990s-they have to invest in their colleges, universities, and post-secondary institutions.
Europe is doing that. Countries in the Far East, such as Japan which is a major competitor on the international markets, are investing heavily in what they know is their most important resource, their people. We have to be the only country in the world that is going to reduce support for education, that is going to reduce the funding that we normally would give to our universities and colleges. I find that almost unbelievable.
I must tell you a little story, Mr. Speaker. Over the last few weeks I made a point of visiting a number of high schools in my constituency. I visited Kamloops Secondary School, North Kamloops Secondary School, Chase

April 25, 1990
Government Orders
Secondary School, Logan Lake Secondary School, Bar-riere Secondary School and Clearwater Secondary School as well as Caribou University College.
I had a chance to meet with students informally and to address some larger assemblies as well. I asked whether they would believe that there is a government in the world that is curtailing its support for education. They said they could not believe that and wondered what backward country that would be. I asked whether they could believe that there is a government now in the western industrialized nations that is cutting back on support for student loans and that is now imposing user fees for those students who want to obtain a loan.
This was the one that really caught their attention, Mr. Speaker. You will love this one. I asked if they knew what country in the world is now imposing a tax on reading. There is only one in the whole world. The students did not know which it was. I said that it is Canada. The Government of Canada is imposing a tax on literature; on newspapers, magazines and books. This is the only country in the entire world doing this.
I think we are also the only country in the world that has now imposed a user fee for those young people who need to borrow to pursue education. We know education is very expensive these days. It is a $ 10,000-a-year ticket for a single person to go off to college or university. Not many people can afford $10,000 a year to go to university, college, or vocational school. If one have two or three children in one's home, that is a lot of money. We depend on the ability of young people to go out to work in the summers so that they can derive income to at least pay part of their way along with loans, bursaries and, perhaps, help from friends and family.
What government do you think, Mr. Speaker, curtailed investment in summer work programs for young people? What government do you think decided to cut back on the Challenge 90 program, a program to encourage the private sector, the non-profit sector, and the public sector to hire students in the summer so that they can afford to go on for post-secondary education? Do you know what government cut back on that by 30 per cent in my constituency this year? It was the federal government.
It is bordering on madness when the Government of Canada says it is going to cut back on support for students' summer programs, it is going to impose a user fee on loans for students, it is going to cut back on funding to the universities, colleges, and vocational schools across the country, and it is going to tax reading.
No wonder students are standing around a little dazed these days wondering what on earth is coming next. I suspect they get up in the morning and dread reading the newspaper to find out what the federal government is going to be doing next to the young people of the country.
Do the Conservative members in the House of Commons realize what is in Bill C-69? Do they support this notion of cutting back support to the colleges and universities across the country at a time when every other country with which we compete is investing heavily in these areas? I do not think they do. I encourage my friends opposite to at least look at this bill before we are asked to vote on it later today.
What would you think, Mr. Speaker, of a government that says: "We have to pick on somebody now and we have decided to pick on sick people"? What kind of a government would it be in a country that picks on sick people? What would one think of a government that says to the poorer provinces: "Rather than assist you, as a central government should, in the development of your health care system in terms of your hospitals and your long-term care facilities, which would give relatively equal access to decent health care across the country, we are going to begin to curtail our support"?
If one is sick in some parts of the country, particularly in a have-not province, one will not have the same access to decent health care as one would in a wealthy province. Do we want a Canada where health care is available at a reasonably high level in certain parts of Canada and at a lesser level in other parts of Canada?
The reason the federal government got involved in the first place was to provide uniform health care across the country. It did not matter whether one was sick in Nova Scotia, Manitoba or Ontario. One would get the same medical treatment. One would have the same access to quality health care. But this government said: "We are
April 25, 1990

now going to abandon that tradition". What kind of an uncaring government would do that?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: A Tory government.


Nelson Andrew Riis: As my friend says, a Conservative government. I can only assume that that is the government that is doing it. It is cutting back on health care and cutting back on support for sick people in the country.
This is the same group that took a slap at veterans in hospitals in its budget. It said: "Look, folks, you have to pay more." These are people who were prepared to die for their country, die for what we have struggled to achieve in this country. They were prepared to die. As a result, they are very sick and are now in hospital. Yet, the government says: "We are going to have to charge you folks more." Such actions really make one wonder.
On top of all this, in just a couple of days, these petitions have come in from one constituency, the constituency of Kamloops. These petitions represent people speaking out against the goods and services tax. There are hundreds and hundreds-maybe thousands- of names that have arrived in just a few days.
I see my hon. friend from the Liberal party is here. He knows that the goods and services tax is now before the Liberal Senate.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Thank goodness for a Liberal Senate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: We are counting on it. We realize that the father of the goods and services tax was our good Prime Minister. Now, we have Allan MacEachen as the godfather when it is before the Senate. We will have to see what the Liberal Senate is going to do with the goods and services tax. Time will tell. We will all be watching and waiting with bated breath to see whether or not the Senate does the correct thing.
What else have we got in this legislation? In Bill C-69, the government cuts out support for the mining exploration sector. Then, it decided to cut back on funding for post-secondary education. Of course, what that means is that we perpetuate the hewers of wood and drawers of water type of life-style we have been fighting and struggling to overcome for many years.
Then, the government cuts back on health care funding in this bill. What else could it possibly do? The one area that springs to mind is social services. I refer to programs to help single parents and the poor of Canada.
Government Orders
Surely, the government would not cut back on those programs.
When you get to page 5 of the bill, there it is. The government indicates that it is going to cut back on the Canada Assistance Plan, which means cutting back on social services and social programs for the poorest people in Canada.
One of the banks we have in the country that is thriving in terms of business is the food banks. When you drive through large cities like Toronto you see a lot of McDonald's hamburger places with those golden arches. They seem to be on almost every comer as you drive through the city. Do you know that there are more food banks in Toronto than McDonald's hamburger joints? That is only one city. We have thousands and thousands of people who every day line up to get a food hamper because their social services simply cannot meet the needs of their families.
As members of Parliament, we are all aware that in our own constituencies there are families on social assistance with two or three children and, in particular, single parents, who come to us with escalating rents and escalating costs to say: "By the end of the month, I do not have any money. I have to go to the food bank. I have to go to the thrift shop to get a pair of used running shoes for one of my children".
We have hundreds of thousands of people living on the very edge and, quite frankly, if we are going to be honest, over the edge. On what they receive in social assistance, particularly in the large urban areas, it is simply impossible to sustain those individuals and families.
What is the federal government going to do about that? Is it going to improve that situation? No, it is going to make it worse, it is going to cut back on its support for social services in the country.
I know that some of my friends across the way on the Conservative benches are saying: "That is all right, Mr. Riis, you can go on and talk about this all day, but where is the money going to come from? Where is the money going to come from if we are going to continue education?" Let me make a modest proposal.
Under the tax systems of most countries around the world, when an individual or family receives a huge inheritance of many millions of dollars-perhaps in some cases $10 million or $20 million-they pay tax on that. Canada is one of the few countries in the world where one does not pay any tax if one inherits a large sum of money. I am not talking about somebody inheriting a family farm, a family business or a family house. I

April 25, 1990
Government Orders
am talking about people who end up with a windfall inheritance of many millions of dollars. Not a single penny of income tax has to be paid on that. We say that is not right. If it can be done in other countries like the United States, why do we not do it here in Canada?
Let us look to the United States. In the United States, in 1986, President Reagan noticed that there were thousands and thousands of profitable corporations that did not pay any income tax at all, year after year, and he said that was wrong. He wanted to close that loophole so the President of the United States introduced a minimum corporate tax. Those thousands and thousands of corporations that were making good profits and could use all the fancy loopholes the system, and had first rate tax lawyers and tax accountants to enable them to get into a non-taxable situation, had to pay at least a minimum corporate tax, which generated billions of dollars.
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that there was not a single corporate spokesperson in the United States who spoke out against that initiative? Not one. I mean, how could one not? If one makes $400 million and is asked to pay a few dollars income tax, how could one say one ought not to be doing that? Not a single person spoke out in any serious way against that initiative.
Why do we not have that in Canada? Why would we not have the same thing in Canada so that those 65,000 profitable corporations that do not pay any income tax whatsoever, year after year, pay their fair share? We are not asking for them to pay exorbitant amounts. We are not asking them to pay significant amounts, just their fair share. If they paid just their fair share, we would generate hundreds of millions of dollars that we do not presently generate to support programs such as helping our young people get a decent education or helping people who are sick have access to long-term care beds.
In the city of Kamloops, we have a major hospital yet I personally know a number of individuals who are waiting months for surgery. There is a list of over 2,000 people waiting for surgery. If one has a heart problem, the province of British Columbia says that one should go down to the United States and have one's operation because we do not have any room. That is not the kind of health care system that we developed in this country.
Our health care system needs to be supported and this bill does exactly the opposite.
I draw to your attention something I came across today. These are some interesting figures, hot off the press, that point out how the tax system in Canada has shifted. Back in 1950, the amount of revenue that came in from corporations and individuals was even, it was balanced. Fifty per cent came from the corporations and 50 per cent from individuals.
Over the years, as a result of a number of Liberal, as well as Conservative governments, this is no longer 50 per cent. It has shifted so that today 79 per cent of the taxes come from individual Canadians and 21 per cent comes from corporations. That is quite a shift over just a handful of years. While individuals have been gouged, gouged, gouged, corporations have been getting a better deal than ever, particularly since the 1950s. Over the years, the corporate sector has been the major beneficiary of our tax system at the expense of individuals, which we are all well aware of.
May I make another suggestion in terms of where we can obtain funds for reducing both our deficit and our debt.
By the way, I noticed with interest the previous speaker in the Conservative benches was concerned about the debt. I have to remind that individual that since the Conservatives have become government in our country, the debt of the country has risen from about $150 billion to nearly $400 billion. In other words, we have seen more than a 100 per cent increase in the country's debt during this particular government.
To talk about their concern, it would not appear they have much concern. If they did, may I suggest something that the government could have done in terms of gaining more revenue?
I have all these petitions against the goods and services tax. One of the reasons that people are concerned about the goods and services tax is because they know the system is unfair. When the system is unfair, an underground economy builds. Some economists now suggest that it is as high as $100 billion in untaxed transactions each year. If the underground economy is that size and was simply taxed at the regular tax rate, that would be the amount of our deficit on an annual basis. That is
April 25, 1990

what is going to happen, an increasing underground economy.
In closing, I would like to say that obviously we in the New Democratic Party do not support Bill C-69. We do not think that curtailing support for education, health care and social services in this country, particularly during these very difficult times, is the right thing to do. As a matter of fact, it goes against what we know as being Canadian.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche - Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for allowing me to participate in this debate which deals with the government's expenditure restraint act, Bill C-69.
As you will no doubt agree, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative government's record clearly demonstrates a litany of broken promises, of misguided and mean-spirited policies which have attacked average taxpaying Canadians, and left them a little more dispirited and a little more disenfranchised than they were before the Tories came to power.
Canadians have had enough. Indeed, the latest opinion polls confirm that the Prime Minister and his government are the most unpopular government in all of Canadian history. Only 15 per cent of all Canadians support the present administration. With that kind of support, the government ought to be asking itself very serious questions.
Moreover, it should realize that something is seriously wrong. What kind of government would pursue a misguided policy, such as the Government Expenditures Restraint Act, when it knows that it is the most unpopular government in our history? I will tell you what kind of government, Mr. Speaker. One that has lost touch with reality, one that has let power go to its head and one that has a complete disdain for the average Canadian.
The oligarchs of ancient Greece used to say that we are the enemies of the people, and we shall devise all the methods which we can to harm them. Unfortunately, the Conservative government is not nearly so frank. From free trade to the unemployment insurance reform, to the clawback of old age pensions, family allowances, to the goods and services tax, to the cut-backs in VIA Rail, to the cut-backs in veterans' affairs, cut-backs to summer
Government Orders
employment for student programs, the long list of the government's mean-spirited initiatives clearly demonstrates that the government is taking its frustrations out on the backs of the Canadian people.
That is right. The government is frustrated because it has failed to fulfil its promise to balance the budget. The deficit is still hovering around $30 billion yearly, and the government has doubled the national debt since it came to power in 1984. Think of it. This government which preached that it intended to balance the budget and exercise fiscal restraint, has done more to increase the public debt than all other Canadian governments combined. That debt now stands at a walloping $320 billion. After having taken individual Canadians for all they were worth, this government has realized that it would have to find another victim upon which to lay the responsibility for its financial mess. Since it knew that it would never get away with another program cut, or another tax hike, and it realized that its options were limited, it opted to lay the burden of its death on the shoulders of the provinces. The freezing of federal transfers will cost the provinces an estimated $7.4 billion over the next five years. That is a lot of national reconciliation.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the federal government transfers approximately $24 billion of its $943 billion budget to the provinces under three specific programs. That amount compares with $39.4 billion to service the debt and $32.6 billion in transfers to individuals. Moreover, two of the programs which federal-provincial transfers served to finance are being attacked by Bill C-69, the bill that we are debating today.
First is the Established Program Financing which provides provinces with equal per capita block grants pertaining to the provision of health care and post-secondary education, and second, the Canada Assistance Plan which matches provincial payments for social assistance and social services.
For instance, the cuts to the Established Program Financing will cost the province of New Brunswick $206 million from 1990 to 1995. Looking at the figures from 1986 to 1995 provides an even gloomier scenario. Over that period Conservative policies will have cost the province $1,057 billion. That is not a government which

April 25, 1990
Government Orders
cares for the health and welfare of the people of New Brunswick and of Canadians.
The passage of this legislation will represent the third time that the Conservative government has attacked the Established Programs Financing since 1986. Cumulatively, EPF cut-backs between 1986 and 1995 amount to the astounding sum of $31.1 billion, of which $22.2 billion should have been allocated to health care and $8.9 to post-secondary education.
It is hard to imagine that the government would savagely attack education in Canada in this manner. The Prime Minister claimed at a Progressive Conservative general meeting last August, and I quote:
This government will carry its fair share of the burden to ensure
that all young Canadians will receive a first-class education as they
confront a world-class challenge.
The tragedy is that the Prime Minister's words are contradicted by the actions of this bill. At a time when student enrolment is up by 35 per cent and when operating budgets are down by 19 per cent, the Prime Minister's actions spell disaster for post-secondary education in Canada.
Bill C-69 helps to demonstrate the government's inability to deal with the problems faced by students and young people across Canada. As a result of this legislation, post-secondary education will be faced with harsh alternatives which may include a combination of tax increases and higher education costs in general.
I believe that the Canadian Association of University Teachers summed it up best when its representatives declared that the last budget "makes a mockery of the federal commitment to the young men and women of this country. The magnitude of the reduction is insupportable".
It is obvious that the provinces could make up for any federal cuts to the cost-sharing program out of their general revenues. However, when federal transfers to the provinces are reduced, university budgets generally follow suit. Ultimately it is the students who suffer.
Last February the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada warned the finance minister in a pre-budget submission to him that cutting transfer payments under the Established Programs Financing would be harmful to provincial grants to overcrowded and under-funded universities.
The Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada's submission observed that federal government support for higher education has declined by 20 per cent since 1977, while university enrolment has increased by 35 per cent over the same period. If this trend continues, there is a definite possibility that the current federal policy of matching grants to universities from private sources will be discontinued when the policy runs out in 1991.
Clearly the government's policies are creating a system whereby only those students who are from the wealthiest backgrounds will be able to aspire to a higher education. It is heart rending to imagine that the Canada our forefathers created, a caring, peaceful, just and tolerant country, will have become an elitist society where only the few can hope to gain from the benefits of a higher education. This trend clearly flies in the face of Canadian tradition, and the government will have to answer for its actions.
Let me remind the government that Canada is a country which values equality of opportunity and social justice. Any government that tampers with these truths runs a considerable risk, indeed.
If this government thinks that it had a hard time with Canadian seniors when it tried to deindex their pensions, just wait until the students begin to protest these cut-backs and the treatment to which they will be subjected if this bill passes.
Time and again we have heard from the Conservative government that Canada must be able to compete in a global economy. Time and again we have heard it said that Canada needed more funding for research and development. Time after time we have heard this government proclaim how much it intended to do to put Canada back on the right track after years of alleged Liberal mismanagement, yet the facts clearly demonstrate their governing philosophy is "Let the fittest survive and the rest will have to make do with less".
The problem with this government is that it likes power too much. It knows it intends to slash social programs, but it cannot bring itself to be frank with the Canadian electorate and tell them because it knows it will tossed out on its ear. But after six years of being told one thing and then being subjected to treatment that is completely at odds with those words, Canadians have had enough. Indeed, the polls indicate that this government is the most unpopular government in history.
April 25, 1990

Canadians are telling this government that they are not impressed. This brings to mind a saying "If you fool me once, shame on you. If you fool me twice, shame on me".
Canadians are onto this government's intentions. They see clearly and they are not being fooled by the Prime Minister's sweet-sounding rhetoric. They know that this government is the one which swore it would never do anything to undermine Canada's unemployment insurance system, and then proceeded to gut it through legislation now before the other place. They know this is the government that promised never to slash VIA Rail services but did so at the first opportunity. They realize that this is a government which promised never to touch old age pensions and family allowances, but clawed them back without so much as a second thought. They realize that this is the most unpopular government in history and are telling themselves that they have had enough and will not put up with it much longer. Canadians are sick and tired of this government.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, total cuts in health care in this bill will amount to $5,247 billion for the next five years. And that is not all, far from it. If we take into account cuts in Established Programs Financing from 1986 to 1995, the total comes to $22,154 billion. You will agree, Mr. Speaker, that these budget cuts are absolutely outrageous.
It is most ironic that the Prime Minister, who as we know admires the American way of doing things, is cutting back on health care financing at a time when Americans are looking with envy at our health care system.
Mr. Speaker, the truth is the Canadian medicare system does not take up more than 8.5 per cent of the National Gross Product, compared to 11.5 per cent in the United States, despite the fact our system is universally socialized. Our system is not perfect but it provides Canadians with the best, the most economical and efficient health care in the world. It is more than popular; 85 per cent of Canadians believe it to be our most important social service. About 60 per cent of the people who responded to a recent survey in the United States said they were in favour of establishing such a system in their country. The Canadian government is nonetheless bent on transforming a program this is the
Government Orders
envy of the whole world into a nightmarish and under-financed program.
Madam Speaker, it is obvious that our medicare system is being axed by this government, and that it will look more and more like the American system. Furthermore, this government is showing us that it wants the provinces, and consequently the middle class and the poor, to pay more taxes. Of all policies put forward by this government, the cuts in medicare are the most reprehensible and repugnant simply because they make health care a luxury. If the provinces decide not to raise their taxes, they will have to pass on the cuts to hospitals, which in turn will be forced to cut the nomber of beds, reduce costly operations, and so on. As a result, Madam Speaker, the Canadian taxpayers will have once again to pay the bill.
It is ironic that this Bill should be introduced by the Minister of Finance who said a few years ago: "Let's not make hospitals, universities and colleges a battleground with the provinces. Let's find a solution outside these fields."
You know, Madam Speaker, power is a strange thing. A famous English writer, Lord Acton, said in this regard: "Power has a tendency to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
However, power does not always exact such a toll. Twenty-four years ago, the Liberal government of Prime Minister Lester Pearson created the Canada Assistance Plan. This agreement provided for a shared financing, between the federal and provincial governments, of social assistance programs.
Nevertheless, the government decided in its last budget to limit to 5 per cent the growth of the transfer payments made under the Canada Assistance Plan to the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta. For the first time since the beginning of this program 24 years ago, the federal government was limiting its contribution. That means that Ontario stands to lose $90 million in revenues in the next five years, Alberta, $28 million, and British Columbia, $38 million.
In order to justify his decision, the Minister of finance, in the budget Speech he made in 1989, stood up for the clawback of family allowances and old-age benefits, claiming that, and I quote, "the central purpose of social security is to assist those most in need, not to subsidize those with high incomes." But then the measures included in that budget were attacking the poor people in Canada. The governement could use a reminder that

April 25, 1990
Government Orders
poor people in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta are just as poor as those in the other provinces.
Besides, let us keep in mind that social welfare payments have yet to enable a poor family to rise above the poverty line.
A few days after the last budget was tabled the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario announced their intention of having the courts rule on the propriety of the CAP cut-backs unveiled in the budget. This legal hassle might delay the introduction of this measure until the courts have rendered their decision. Alberta stands four square behind these two provinces. The contesting provinces argue that, under the CAP agreement, arrangements cannot be changed unless a year's notice has been served, and with the consent of the provinces. None of these conditions has been met.
Madam Speaker, in closing I want to say that the Liberal Party is adamantly opposed to Bill C-69 because it amounts to an assault on medicare, post-secondary education and the Canada Assistance Plan. These programs are the basis of Canadian society and as such should be immune to the frustations and meanness of the government.

As the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra said some time ago, let us hope that hospitals will not be checking our credit cards before they check our pulse. I am afraid that this bill may lead us in that direction.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Point of order. The hon. member for Kamloops.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions and it is the interest of the government to refer this bill, not to a legislative committee, but to the Standing Committee on Finance.
As you know, Madam Speaker, we have had some difficulties with the Chair of the finance committee and the way he has done business. I understand, however, that he has taken significant steps today to resolve our concerns. We will be filing a report with the House tomorrow. I would like to say, assuming that that is
accomplished, it would be our intention at that time to ask for unanimous consent to have this bill go to the Standing Committee on Finance. At the moment it is destined to go to a legislative committee until the report from the standing committee is tabled in the House.


Pierre H. Vincent: Madam Speaker, my understanding is that the Official Opposition and our party are ready to send the bill to the Standing committee on finance and I am anxious to hear the NDP's answer tomorrow, so that we may send bill C-69 to the Standing committee on finance instead of a legislative committee.
So, Madam Speaker, I believe we will be asking for that permission tomorrow, with the consent of the Liberal Party.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I concur. We would be prepared to see the bill referred to the Standing Committee on Finance instead of a legislative committee. Given what the hon. member for Kamloops has said, it appears that since there is not unanimous consent tonight I guess we will have to deal with the motion before the House as it is.
I presume that tomorrow, if everything goes according to the plan of the hon. member for Kamloops, the House will be able to re-refer the bill, or call it back from one committee and refer it to another. It sounds unusual but I guess it can be done and I am quite prepared, on behalf of the Official Opposition, to say that we will, of course, consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member does know the House can do whatever it wants. I am sure that the House is happy to see that there is movement toward co-operation and understanding. We will look forward to the decision.
Is the House ready for the question? The hon. member for Cape Breton-Highlands-Canso.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I just wanted to compliment my colleague, the member for Restigouche, on the way in which he addressed this legislation.
April 25, 1990

Government Orders
The reduction in transfers will have a dramatic effect particularly on Atlantic Canada, which benefits the most from assistance payments which are affected by this legislation. Will the hon. the member elaborate on some of the comments he made with particular concern to New Brunswick?


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Unfortunately, there will not be time for the hon. member to elaborate.

It being 5.54 p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, April 24, 1990, under S.O. 78, it is my duty to interrupt proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to complete the second reading stage of the Bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the amendment negatived. The next question is on the main motion.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Madam Speaker, I think that if you asked, you would obtain agreement to have the vote on the New Democratic Party's motion apply in reverse, I suppose, to the main motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: You have heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Ottawa- Vanier. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I declare the motion carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Attewell:: Madam Speaker, I would like the record to show that I did not participate in the voting because I have been asked to chair the legislative committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: It being 6.25 p.m., the House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.25 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, April 26, 1990