1990-04-23

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Keyes:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should
consider the advisability of reinstating funding for the Canadian
Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.
["Therefore, the sitting is suspended until two o'clock.\nAt 1.40 p.m., the sitting of the House was suspended."]
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased today to have the opportunity to speak in favour of the motion of my hon. colleague from Hamilton West urging the government to reinstate funding for the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.
As the Centre for Occupational Health and Safety is located in Hamilton, the concern of my colleague from Hamilton West is obvious and well-founded. The fact that this motion was selected by the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business as a votable motion suggests that my colleague's concern is shared by many other members of this House.
The issue is the government's decision to withdraw funding from the centre. Established in 1978 by an act of Parliament, the centre has evolved into an internationally recognized institution.
In 1986-87, the government began cost recovery measures. Cabinet decided that the centre should be selfsufficient by the beginning of fiscal year 1991-92. The centre has been increasing its revenues through userfees, and the government has been withdrawing its funding.
The centre has been operating on a budget of about $10 million a year.
This year the Centre for Occupational Health and Safety will try to recover $5.3 million of its operating costs through service fees and sales of its products.
The mandate of the centre is to promote the fundamental right of Canadians to a healthy and safe working environment.
A tripartite organization, the centre's governing council, consists of a chairman and governors representing governments-federal, provincial, territorial-employers and labour.
The centre is the national information resource in occupational health and safety. It responds to inquiries. It provides a cross-Canada electronic service; and it produces and distributes publications.
Its clients are labour, management, government, health and safety organizations, media, educational institutions and professionals.
It collaborates with Canadian and foreign organizations in developing its data base collection. The centre's INFO disc was selected by the World Health Organization and the International Development Research Centre as the information vehicle for an international poison control project.
The World Health Organization has requested copies of the centre's publications to assist a series of discussions aimed at international terminology standardization. The Occupational Health and Safety Information Agency of the International Labour Office wants to distribute the centre's information throughout the developing world.
The centre's objectives are to provide Canadians with information about occupational health and safety which is trustworthy, comprehensive and intelligible, to facilitate responsible decision-making, promote change in the workplace, increase awareness of the need for a healthy

April 23, 1990
Private Members' Business
and safe working environment and support education and training. These objectives are cited in the government's own Main Estimates for this year.
The concern of many is that these objectives are being compromised by the government's decision to eliminate funding to the centre and to have the centre become self-sufficient.
The centre's mandate is now a commercial one. This is confirmed in the centre's business plan which covers the five-year period from April, 1990 to April, 1995. The plan was developed to respond to the decision of the Minister of Labour that the government will substantially reduce and ultimately discontinue its funding of the centre.
This plan calls for price increases on most existing products and services. It is the centre's plan for financial self-sufficiency.
The key service provided by the centre is a free access service for workers and other individuals. This, apparently, for the moment, will not be subject to a user fee. But what guarantees are there that this will not happen at some point in the future?
One of the strategies outlined in the business plan clearly states that the sale of products rather than the delivery of services will be favoured because the profit potential is greater. The great concern is that profits will be displacing the ability and right of workers and small employers to important information.
The centre's new commercial mandate affects the centre's credibility. Contributors which provide information free of charge to the centre for dissemination are concerned that user fees are going to be applied.
The application of user fees violates universal access to health and safety information. These fees are regressive. People who can afford to pay for the information will get it. Those who cannot afford to pay will not get access to vital information.
Surely safe and healthy workplaces are fundamental rights of Canadian workers. The government should be protecting this right, not diminishing it.
The great danger is that vital and necessary information becomes privileged and access also becomes privileged.
The move by the government endangers the future of the centre. It is wrong. I urge the government to
reinstate its funding to the centre, as recommended in the motion of my hon. colleague from Hamilton West. Let us not punish success by withdrawing support.


Mr. Charles DeBlois (Montmorency-Orleans):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion presented by the hon. member for Hamilton West, which asks the government to reconsider its decision on cutbacks at the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.
My constituents may find it somewhat surprising to see me addressing this subject, Madam Speaker.
Nevertheless, I think it is important for those watching us, as it is for my constituents, to realize that our role here in Ottawa is not only to defend the interests of our constituency but to take an interest in all national issues. The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety is certainly one of the most important Canadian institutions that is engaged in promoting and providing the kind of information that is so vital to the labour world.
This is our fourth day of debate on this motion. I think we should recall that the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety was established some 12 years ago, and that every year, as the previous speaker mentioned, this organization has received, mostly from the federal government, the sum of $10 million to meet its objectives and inform Canadians. Recently, however, in accordance with pur policy to put our financial house in order, the government of which I am a member decided to ask all Crown corporations to do their share, so that the clean-up of our public finance strategy will be shared by all agencies receiving funding from the Crown. That is why, I repeat, this government has, I would say almost reluctantly, asked the centre to do what all other agencies are doing to help put our financial house in order.
This morning, Madam Speaker, I was reading Hansard for the three days we debated this issue. I read all this with great interest, but I must admit that before this morning, I was not familiar with the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, and I must say the range of the centre's activities was a revelation. Thanks to the speeches by previous speakers, including members of the opposition, I was able to acquire a good understanding of the indispensable role played by this national institution. Our opposition friends all agree that we
April 23, 1990

should cut spending. We have a considerable debt, and we are told that we should cut into the bureaucracy. However, every time we mention one area where we are asking people to improve spending controls, the opposition's attitude, and I think this is rather depressing, is always the same: They say we are not cutting the right things. They say we should not cut spending. However, if we listened to them, we would never do anything at all.


Mr. Cote:: Let's cut the opposition!


Mr.   De@: I certainly wouldn't mind cutting the opposition as the hon. member just suggested, but after all, under our democratic system we have to accept the fact of our hon. friends opposite-is it partisanship or petty politics? Who knows! However, I can tell you that we have the guts, and I say this without hesitation, I think we have the guts to try, and even to succeed. I think we shall succeed in putting our financial house in order. What are we asking the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety to do? Just this: Try and upgrade your cost recovery policy. It is entirely normal that an agency funded by the government, by your taxes and mine, in which employers and the unions participate jointly with the federal government, that that agency recover its costs when it provides information to people who want that information. In any case, the centre is not the only agency that works on a cost recovery, fee-for-service basis. I don't think this measure is intended to kill an agency that has provided excellent service. Its purpose is simply to get everyone more involved, starting with the unions, the employers and those who receive these services.
Madam Speaker, we are almost caught in a vicious circle. They tell us: Put your financial house in order. Because of the deficit we are cutting back on funding for the centre, and if we do not apply this strategy, our social programs will be at risk. In my riding, there are senior citizens who disagree with me and say: You are cutting some of the things we get, like the old age pension clawback for people with gross incomes around $70,000, or a net income of $50,000. However, I tell my senior citizens: Listen! You are lucky. Who knows whether in 15 or 20 years, when a Liberal government from which the Lord preserve us is in power again, we will still be able to afford old age pensions? I am not sure, Madam Speaker, even though I am old enough. I am not sure than when I
Private Members' Business
am 65, I will be able to collect my old age pension, not because I will be one of the fortunate whose gross income is over $50,000 or $70,000, but if we do not put our financial house in order, if we do not make some unpleasant cuts-I am always struck by the fact that everyone agrees with cuts, but no one wants cuts in areas that affect them.
It is the same with the GST. We had a lot of organizations come here to tell us, regarding our proposed goods and services tax, that they agreed with changing the federal tax. They said, "The present tax is inefficient and full of loopholes. We agree with your plan, but exempt us. Don't touch us!" In other words, they agree with restoring the government's finances and making cuts, but they say, "Please don't make cuts that affect us!"
I understand why the hon. member for Hamilton West defends the Centre for Occupational Health and Safety, which is probably in his riding. I would do so the same thing if I were in his place. If this centre were in the beautiful riding of Montmorency-Orleans, I would certainly be hurt. I think that he is defending it well and skilfully.
That said, I think that beyond our own riding, we must see the national interest. The national interest now requires all organizations receiving federal funds to make an effort. No federal agency, no organization that depends on the federal government, should be spared from this collective effort which applies to everything under federal jurisdiction.
Madam Speaker, I do not want to dwell on it. I think we are talking calmly and dispassionately and saying, "Can this very important organization in Canadian life not-" and I think people understand. From what I have read, people who deal with the CCOSH are not surprised that they have to pay part of the costs related to the documentation and information they receive.
For all these reasons, I do not think it is necessary to ask the government to reconsider its policy of requiring this agency to cover more of its costs. Therefore, I must unfortunately vote against the motion of the hon. member for Hamilton West and support the government in its decision to require more financial responsibility of the

April 23, 1990
Private Members' Business
directors of the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, I feel privileged to have the opportunity to speak on this Private Member's motion presented by my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton West.
I want to start by addressing the hon. member opposite, the member for Montmorency-Orleans. In his speech he asked the question: "Are we doing this for partisan reasons?" I want to tell him straight off that this is not an issue with which we can afford to play partisan politics.
This centre for occupational health and safety has been useful not only to the constituents of the hon. member for Hamilton West, but it has probably been used by constituents of every member of the House.
Before I came to speak on this private members' motion today, I reviewed the annual report of the centre. There are, perhaps, a lot of Canadians out there who do not know what the Centre for Occupational Health and Safety does. It is a centre which provides Canadians with information about occupational health and safety which is trustworthy and comprehensive. It is there to facilitate responsible decision making, to promote change in the work place, to increase awareness of the need for a healthy and safe-working environment, and to support education and training.
The hon. member mentioned in his speech that the centre has been open for 10 years. During that period it has developed a trust, not only nationally but internationally. It has been putting out publications and providing tips to various publications. Every year the centre has been touching close to four million Canadians who work in the workplace.
The centre has developed relations with Agriculture Canada to provide regulatory information about pesticide products, as well as with the Australian Centre for Health and Safety, the Canadian Hospital Association, Environment Canada and universities across Canada.
This institution was built over a period of many years and is a corner-stone for business and labour in our country. The motion comes from the hon. member for
Hamilton West and one may think that, because it is a private members' motion, it involves just his riding. That is not so. It is a national service as well as an international service.
As the hon. member opposite stated in his speech, I realize that we do have a deficit and a debt problem in this country. He should never think that we on this side of the House ignore that.
When looking at making cuts in the national government, it becomes a game of options and priorities. It seems to me that one of the priorities of the government, alongside fiscal responsibility, is a deep and passionate commitment to matters environmental.
I read last week the Minister of the Environment's framework for discussion on the environment, the Green Plan.


Mr. Gardiner:: It probably didn't take you long.


Dennis Joseph Mills: It took me a fair bit of time to read it.
I, for one, think that the Minister of the Environment is deeply committed to this issue. I found him to be sincere in trying to get his head around how we can get people involved in an activist way with the environmental issue. It is not an easy job.
My own experience in my own riding has been that there are a lot of people who talk about getting involved in the environmental movement but, generally speaking, it is mostly the children in the country who get involved. It is tougher to get parents and adults motivated.
I concede that he has a tough job. But in his objective paper, the Minister of the Environment stated: "To reach this objective we believe that the Government of Canada must lead by example. We believe that a healthy environment and a strong economy must be recognized as being mutually dependent."
The minister talked about his impatience to act and how we have to make up for decades of environmental oversight. This is all pretty good as far as I am concerned. He stated further that the Government of Canada plans to upgrade its ability to provide more timely and effective warnings of natural hazards such as blizzards, tornadoes and marine storms, and hazards that are themselves linked to pollution emergencies. He talked about improved techniques for understanding and detecting these
April 23, 1990

hazards, bettercommunications, enhanced public education, as well as matters related to health.
The Minister of the Environment has received a lot of criticism in the last few days about his discussion paper. But I think that tactically he is doing the right thing. He has put a document out there which is causing people to react. He said that by September he would come up with a specific action plan.
With this request to restore funding to the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety we are asking this government to be consistent with its priority commitment to the environment because if this centre is in any way jeopardized or fractured, it is going against this action plan presented by the Minister of the Environment.
This is the problem that Canadians have right now. There is a lot of confusion out there and it hinges on the issue of trust. On one hand the government talks about its commitment to the environment. On the other hand you see cuts-although not large, an amount of money we could find from within the system-to an institution that has been on the leading edge of providing guidelines and regulations for the workplace and preparing it as an environment that is safe and without hazard.
In order to maintain consistency on its priority issue the government should not be looking at an institution that has basically been an environmental institution since 1978. It has been on the leading edge. I commend my colleague, the hon. member for Hamilton-West, for taking the initiative on this. In government there are hundreds of Crown corporations and services which, because they do not have a high profile in terms of service, do not get on that priority sheet, and this will be another such agency. It is an automatic cut. In other words, the Minister of Finance will say: "I want all Crown corporations to be cut by 15 to 20 per cent", and there will be no sensitivity to some of the smaller agencies of government.
The Minister of the Environment, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance should get together and realize that this is an institution that provides national service. Every one of us in this House have people in our ridings seeking advice on how to create a more healthy and safe
Private Members' Business
workplace. I think that if they understood this they would reconsider their position.


Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, it is a particular pleasure for me, as a representative from Hamilton, to be addressing this House on one of my city's worthiest institutions. We in the greater Hamilton-Wentworth area are not the only proud beneficiaries of the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety. All of Ontario and indeed all of Canada should treasure this project.
We all agree today that we face enormous challenges in the area of occupational health and safety in Canada. Fortunately we are now equipped with a vital information centre on occupational health and safety. This was envisaged 12 years go by labour, business and governments in order to meet the future challenges which are now upon us.
In the past decade the number of occupational accidents and illnesses in Canada has continued to be a major concern to employers, workers and government. During this 10 year period we have seen an increasing willingness and capacity on the part of organizations, employers, workers, government and everyone else to co-operate in efforts to reduce these losses.
We are talking about losses in terms of human suffering and economic losses as well. We must increase our efforts. We must continue to work together to ensure a safe and healthy working environment for all Canadians. As recently as this past weekend we saw 140 nations involved in Earth and World Environment Day. We are greatly concerned about our environment and about its effects on the health of Canadians. Canadian workplaces are a vital part of this total environment, so we must be equally concerned with the effects of the workplace on the health and well-being of the workers.
Occupational safety and health in Canada is a pretty complex field. We are talking about a combination of economic, scientific and ethical issues. The field is further complicated by the fact that we are dealing with 13 governments-10 provinces, 2 territories and Ottawa, and they are all trying to do something.
The importance of this field in Canada and in other countries is becoming more and more recognized because of the impact of economic, social, technological and demographic trends on this area of activity as well as the impact of trends related to the working environment.

April 23, 1990
This involves the whole health field in general so we are talking about a very serious problem here.
The current economy in Canada does dictate a critical need to reduce government deficits and to improve productivity and efficiency. The need to compete internationally also highlights and adds impetus to greater productivity and efficiency. So all levels of government in Canada are finding it necessary to cut back on some of their social services and programs.
Employers are more acutely aware of their changing social responsibilities. Because of the current shortage of skilled workers in some geographic areas of this country, some corporations are increasing their chances to attract and retain the best employees by demonstrating attention to factors such as occupational health and safety.
The rising cost of the workers compensation programs, of health care in Canada and the need to improve the health status of Canadians are making us insist more and more on health promotion, disease prevention and accident prevention.
The impact that these trends are having on the field of occupational safety and health is also opening many opportunities for the CCOHS in performing its mandate. The rising awareness and understanding of health, occupational and general environmental issues is creating an increased demand for information on these subject areas. The business plan submitted clearly shows that the centre is conscious of these rising demands and that it can become financially self-sufficient. It can do this but, at the same time, it has to meet the mandate of serving Canadian workers in matters of occupational health and safety.
The Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety is ready to face these new challenges. In fact, it is because the centre could successfully meet challenges in the past that it is renowned, both throughout Canada and internationally. It is known for its reliable source of unbiased and highly professional information on occupational health and safety matters. The CCOHS has done an excellent job, a superb job in my view, in meeting its mandate, under the guidance and control of its three social partners-a demonstration that tripartism works.
The government is very much committed to all aspects of occupational health and safety in Canada and, specifically, to the work of this centre. This commitment has not and will not change. The government is confident that the CCOHS will meet this key challenge and become a self-sufficient organization while operating under the basic mandate of serving Canadian workers in matters of occupational health and safety.
In closing, I want to say that there is no question that the centre and its staff have proven their managerial excellence. As a Hamiltonian, I am proud to salute the Canadian Centre for Occupational Health and Safety and, like my distinguished colleague from Hamilton West, I am sure all other members in this House will do likewise.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Therefore, the sitting is suspended until two o'clock.
At 1.40 p.m., the sitting of the House was suspended.



SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, today we learned of a remarkably inept statement made
April 23, 1990

by the Minister of Energy to the Canadian Coal Association; that Canada would have to ban cars in its major cities to meet national targets for cutting air pollution.
The minister is using scare tactics to justify inaction. The fact is that energy efficiency alone, as confirmed by experts, can meet or exceed the target of a 20 per cent reduction in carbon dioxide pollution by 2005, as proposed in Toronto at the Changing Atmosphere Conference.
The Minister of Energy shows an abysmal ignorance of the facts. In addition, energy efficiency makes good economic sense. We have a long way to go in Canada to become energy efficient. Therefore, the minister is failing to grasp a political opportunity which a seven year old would readily understand. What a pity!

[Translation)



RAILWAY TRANSPORT

Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, on March 30, Canada's National Transportation Agency published the report on its investigation of the inspection practices for Canadian National Railways tank cars in the Montreal-Sarnia corridor.
The investigation highlighted three main points. First, Transport Canada's safety standards are not enforced as they should be; second, the railway's operating procedures show that some of the standards are probably unnecessary, as a result of progress made; finally, in view of the two previous factors, new standards should be developed. Furthermore, it seems that staff cuts in the Sarnia yards are adding to the pressure on railway inspectors to do more in less time.
Madam Speaker, this is not the first time I have spoken about tank cars in this House and Transport Canada must impose strict penalties on railways that do not meet the safety requirements in effect for tank and freight cars.



FISHERIES

Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon -Clark's Crossing):: Madam Speaker, last week the Minister of Fisheries
delivered a speech obviously written for him in the boardrooms of the corporate fishing giants.
It is clear that the minister has ignored the people of Canso, Grand Bank, Digby and hundreds of other communities who depend upon the fishery. It is clear he has ignored the findings of the Harris report, which identified as one of the major contributors to the collapse of the fish stocks the technology used by large offshore corporate fishing fleets.
One of the federal government's own advisory councils had this to say about the consequences of failing to aid the communities hit by the fishing crisis: "hundreds of Atlantic communities will lose their only industry. Thousands of families, left without adequate incomes will be forced to rely on welfare, or to uproot their lives for the dubious promise of mainland wealth."
On two occasions the Prime Minister has told Atlantic Canadians that there will be an assistance package for them. But last week the Minister of Fisheries told them that there would be an aid package only. If what the Minister of Fisheries has said is correct, what does that make the Prime Minister? If the minister is incorrect, his resignation should be demanded immediately.
What Atlantic Canadians want is a future in the fishery which has sustained their communities for hundreds of years. This government is more concerned about the balance sheets of their corporate friends than about the lifeblood of hundreds of communities and thousands of families.



EARTH DAY

Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, as all hon. members will know, yesterday was a great day in Canada, and in fact around the world, when we celebrated Earth Day.
There was a great rally on Parliament Hill. I know that all members and all levels of government are going to do their best to see that the earth is going to be cleaned up.
We are privileged today to have in the gallery the founder of Earth Day and the designer of the Earth Day flag, Mr. John McConnell of New York City. I am pleased to welcome him here.

April 23, 1990



AGRICULTURE

Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, across Canada farmers are seeing ominous signs as to what the future holds for them under this government's international trade policy.
In 1989, they saw the GATT overturn import quotas for yogurt and ice cream, and the United States slap a 3.6 cents a pound duty on pork exports.
This year, Canadian dairy farmers have been confused and concerned by the refusal of the federal government to increase the price of industrial milk on February 1, causing their levels of income to fall even further behind their costs of production. In Nova Scotia, milk producers have been further troubled by the drop in the value of their 1990 quota as compared to 1989, showing uncertainty in an area of agriculture that should be stable and healthy.
Canadian farmers are growing worried that the government is not acting forcefully in international negotiations to protect their interests. Increasingly they fear that these developments foreshadow a general erosion of the supply management systems on which they depend for a profit. I call on the government to take the kind of action that will reassure and protect the thousands of farmers who feel that they are being forgotten at the international bargaining table.



MUSEUMS

Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland -Colchester):: Madam Speaker, the National Geographic Society has billed a recent fossil find near Parrsboro, Nova Scotia, as the biggest fossil find in North America. The discovery included over 100,000 pieces of fossil bones, as well as a 300 million year old fossilized insect, possibly the oldest ever found.
The people of the Parrsboro area have put together a plan for a museum and research centre which involves funding from the private sector, the province, the municipality and the federal government. The proposal would not only provide a museum to display the fossils, but will also be a research facility to eliminate further shipment of these valuable fossils to the United States.
I strongly urge members of the Treasury Board to approve the application of the Department of Communications for funding when the proposal for this museum comes before it. The museum will save the fossils and provide much-needed work in this area of high unemployment.



NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK

Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, this is National Volunteer Week, a week devoted to recognizing the varied and invaluable contribution of volunteers across Canada.
Volunteers are the backbone of many of our country's non-profit organizations. Religious organizations, sports and recreational activities, education, youth development and health account for fully 57 per cent of Canada's volunteer experience. Our society is greatly enriched by the generous participation of these volunteers in hospitals, seniors' homes, boy scouts and girl guides, or wherever their zeal may take them.
We in the Liberal opposition hope that volunteers will not be deterred in their work by the imposition of a 7 per cent tax on their contributed out-of-pocket expenses as proposed by the mean-spirited government opposite.



EARTH DAY

Mr. Ken  Janies@Sarnia-Lambton: Madam Speaker, as all members will know, yesterday marked the twentieth anniversary of the original Earth Day.
Thousands of Canadians from coast to coast joined millions of people around the world who participated in thousands of separate activities. Themes, such as reforestation, stop acid rain, energy conservation, recycling, reuse, responsible waste disposal, and water conservation were heard across my riding of Sarnia-Lambton as well as around the globe.
However, yesterday must be more than a celebration to be effectively the first day of a green future. What we need is a change in basic habits, not simply attitudes. For the remainder of the year, Canadians including those of Sarnia-Lambton have to recognize that just about everything we do can have an effect on our environment. Let us have Earth Day on our minds every day. We, as elected representatives, must lead by example. If enough
April 23, 1990

of us made a commitment to choose to do the things that are better for the environment whenever possible, collectively we could make a difference.
Madam Speaker, on Earth Day 1991 I look forward to hearing about the progress which we have made through 1990. For my part, in 1990 and beyond I will be working actively toward being part of the solution.



FORESTRY

Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, yesterday was the twentieth anniversary of Earth Day, and was probably the biggest celebration of the event in history. Canadians and people all over the world helped our environment by planting trees and making their contribution to fighting global warming and reforesting our over-harvested lands.
Everyone except this government is planting trees. Our own federal government has allowed tree planting agreements in B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario to expire and there is only lip service to our forests in the government's so-called Green Plan.
I call on this government to catch up to everybody else's interest in Earth Day and renew those tree-planting agreements today.



NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK

Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Madam Speaker, this week is National Volunteer Week in Canada. This is an ideal time to pay tribute to the millions of volunteers throughout this land who have given their time to enrich the lives of others.
Thirteen million Canadians, roughly two-thirds of our adult population, devote their time and energy to one of Canada's many volunteer services.
Volunteers carry out a variety of tasks in our communities. In fact, Canadian society as we know it today could not function without volunteers. Through their time and commitment volunteers bring our communities together and build a spirit that is Canada.
On behalf of all Canadians I would like to salute volunteers from coast to coast during this national volunteer week in Canada for the important contributions they make to our Canadian way of life.



THE ENVIRONMENT

Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent):: Madam Speaker, Canadians wonder what on earth this government is doing to save the environment. After millions of us took part in Earth Day ceremonies yesterday, Canadians realize this government's action is only hot air and recycled promises mired in delay.
For example, the Canadian Environmental Protection Act was trumpeted as the toughest law in the western hemisphere, yet fewer than 3 per cent of companies were charged after being caught breaking the law. There is only one lonely inspector for all of Ontario and yet the Tories will hire 4,000 people for the GST. Clean-up of the Great Lakes gets a paltry $25 million this year while the GST gets $111 million, part of a $1.5 billion total.
The IJC says the health of our children is threatened by exposure to even low levels of toxic wastes in the Great Lakes and yet the minister of health says more study is needed. Canadians are demanding strong, tough national action that puts the environment first.



SOCIAL BENEFITS

Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, people in my riding, as so many others in Canada, have a high unemployment rate. Special assistance and training are the best means for these people to get ahead and to create the lifestyle that they and every other person in Canada deserve. Five months ago the federal government sought through Bill C-21 to provide for better adjustment measures and more training and support and all in all, a fairer UI system.
This assistance which is needed and necessary cannot wait. I ask all members to do what they can to speed the passage of this bill through the other House.

April 23, 1990
Oral Questions PENITENTIARIES


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, on Friday a comprehensive study of the treatment of female offenders was released. The report of the Task Force on Federally Sentenced Women is the fourteenth report to recommend the closing of the Kingston Prison for Women.
Canada's prison system discriminates against women. Minimum and medium security prisoners are locked up in Kingston's outdated, inhumane maximum security facility.
I have been there and have seen the deplorable conditions. The prison cuts women off totally from the outside world. Some live literally thousands of kilometres from their families, making it all the more difficult for them to reintegrate into society.
Some of these women have small children. They are allowed only one 15-minute phone call per month to their kids. Inmate after inmate has committed suicide. The 1970 Royal Commission on the Status of Women also recommended the closure of this prison.
I urge the government to finally listen and to shut down the Kingston Penitentiary for Women.


Mr. Ross Stevenson (Durham):: Madam Speaker, there was good news for all of Canada last week, resulting directly from our free trade agreement with the United States. On Thursday the president of Proctor and Gamble announced the company's plans for rationalizing its production to serve the entire North American market. As a result, 200 new jobs will be created in the company's plants at Hamilton, Belleville and Brockville in Ontario, and the once threatened jobs of 140 employees at Pointe Claire, Quebec, are now preserved. As well, $11 million will be spent on plant renovations and new equipment. Exports of these products to the United States will have an annual value of $53 million.
The president stated:
This development can be attributed in large part to the new trade environment between Canada and the United States. Free trade has given the company a better environment in which to make longterm plans and we are confident in a free environment and we can do better.
Madam Speaker, this is very good news-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: I am sorry, the hon. member's time has expired. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.



PERLY BRIDGE

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Perley bridge between Hawkesbury, Ontario and Grenville, Quebec, clearly must be replaced. The bridge was built in 1931, and the subject was first raised 15 years ago when the then Minister of Public Works said that a new bridge should be built.
According to a report published in 1986 by the engineering firm McNeely and Boileau, the bridge was already obsolete and should be replaced within five years. So far, however, no agreement to that effect has been signed by the federal government and the province. Worse, Treasury Board has yet to allocate funding for holding the government hearings that are required before a new bridge is built.
Mr. Speaker, I appeal to the Government of Canada to ensure that a federal-provincial agreement is signed very shortly on replacing the Perley bridge. I also want to take this opportunity to ask the President of the Treasury Board to at least allocate the necessary funding for the environmental assessment which is compulsory before the Perley bridge can be replaced.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Before the Minister of Finance introduced his budget last February, the Prime Minister said that interest rates would start going down after the budget was introduced. This has not happened. They have kept going up. In fact, last Thursday the Bank of Canada raised its rate to 13.77 per cent. This caused the banks and mortgage companies to increase greatly the rates for consumer loans, business loans and for mortgages.
April 23, 1990

Why has the minister allowed these rates to go up when he should know what a disastrous effect this is having on Canadian consumers, businesses and workers? Why is he allowing this to happen?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, first let me point out that, as is normal, what the Leader of the Opposition said about the Prime Minister's statement is a distorted.


Some hon. members:: No.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The hon. members opposite say no. I suggest they read it, and read it carefully, and they will understand precisely what I have just said.
The question that the hon. member asked should be put in a somewhat different way. If we do not take these actions today, if we do not deal with the inflation problem today, and if we let the inflation problem get out of control, what will happen a year or two down the road when the problems will be far, far more serious than if we did follow that course? We will be looking at higher interest rates. We would be getting right back into the mess that the hon. member presided over when he was part of the government in 1981-82 when we had the worst recession since the 1930s.


An hon. member:: You are creating it.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: That is what we are trying to avoid with the policies we are following today.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance should realize that it is his own tax increases-over 32 tax increases since this government took office-that have been creating the inflation he claims to be concerned about. If he is so concerned, why is he causing it through his own tax policies?
More specifically, does he not know that his high interest rates are helping to drive up the value of our Canadian dollar, something that is having a disastrous effect on export industries which are the corner-stone of the Canadian economy?


Some hon. members:: Shame, shame!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I ask the minister again, why is he allowing our interest rates and the value of our dollar to be so high? Why are he and his government leading the country into a recession?
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, what we are trying to do now is to avoid leading ourselves into a recession by dealing with the inflation problem today.
I am sympathetic. I understand the concerns that people in the export business have about the level of the dollar. I understand that. I also say to them that if we ignore the problem, as did the government that he supported in the early 1980s and the late 1970s, the problem for the manufacturers and exporters in the country will be far more serious. That is precisely why we are following the policies we are following today. If we do that, we will go through a difficult period now. But the future will be far brighter than a future where we damage our competitive position on a permanent basis and in a far more serious way than has been the case by what we hope is a short-term higher level of interest rates than either my hon. friend or I would like to see. The problem is that we have to deal with this problem today.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Exporters' Association says that the minister's high dollar and high interest rate policies have already damaged severely the competitive position of Canadian exporters.
After the interest rates went up last week, Mr. James 'Iaylor, President of the Canadian Exporters' Association said: "It's more bad news." If the minister was providing a message that was so acceptable and understandable by Canadian business, why would the Canadian Exporters' Association call his policies more bad news?

Mr. Speaker, last week's increase in interest rates penalized small business and all consumers and may drag the Canadian economy into a recession. Once again, I want to ask why the government insists on wanting to create a recession. When will the Minister of Finance put a stop to this policy and start reducing interest rates in order to avoid the disastrous impact the policy will have on our economy?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to what people like Mr. Taylor said about the current policies of the government. But if

April 23, 1990
Oral Questions
we ignore this problem today, the problem will get out of hand because inflation pressures are rising.
We had a 4 per cent inflation rate in 1988. We had a 5 per cent inflation rate in 1989. For the first part of this year, it has been in the 5.25 per cent or 5.5 per cent range. Unit labour costs rose at 6.3 per cent last year and, in the last quarter of 1989, at 6.9 per cent. So it is a problem that we have to deal with.
The hon. member is frowning in wondering about this high interest rate policy. I remind him that, when he and I sat together with Mr. Morton Shulman side by side, Mr. Shulman asked my colleague what would he do if interest rates continued to go up. Would he resign? The hon. member for Windsor West said: "Yes, I would resign." That was in early February of 1980.
What happened? Interest rates went to 20 per cent to 25 per cent. What did he do? He stayed right in his place in the House. He did not resign. He was just playing politics.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
I would like to ask the minister what initiative he has taken in light of the three CF-18 crashes in the last week?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question and his tone.
We have suspended operational training in Canada until 900 hours on April 25. During that time, the Commander of Air Command, the Commander of Fighters, the Commanders of both Bagotville and CFB Cold Lake, and the squadron leaders will be meeting with regard to the process and recommendations that can be made to the minister to ensure the security and safety of the men and women who fly on behalf of Canada.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, there is a perception out there in the
Canadian public that there is something terribly wrong either with the CF-18 or the manner in which it is flown.
I have a supplementary question for the hon. minister. Would the minister consider getting together a "tiger-team" of experts to gather up all the information that is available about the previous CF-18 crashes, putting it under a microscope, getting in the room with the microscope, and staying there until we come up with the answers as to precisely what the reasons are for these tragic losses and the remedial action that should be taken.
Also, would the hon. minister consider making this information available to the Canadian public to address their concerns in a timely manner, and keeping at least the training flights of the CF-18s grounded until this occurs?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the "tiger-team" my hon. colleague suggests would be a team that is made up of squadron leaders, base commanders, and those involved in instruction in CF-18 Air Command.
The process that will be undertaken over the next 48 hours will arrive at a conclusion. When that conclusion, based on the best of military advice, has been communicated to me, I will inform the House, the hon. member, and the Canadian public. The hon. member knows as I do that there is no one more concerned about the safety of the men and women who fly than the Commander of Air Command, the squadron leaders, and those men and women who serve with them.
Everything that can will be done to identify what may be a shortcoming in the realism that we use today which may have crossed the line of safety. The Air Command has instituted that type of study. There will be a report by the end of May and when we have concluded these reports I will communicate to the House and to the hon. member.


Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question as well is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Certainly my party wants to express our sadness and deepest sympathy to the families who have lost pilots in recent crashes in Canada.
I appreciated the minister's response to the previous question, but there are a number of outstanding questions about the computer systems, possible cutbacks to training, and the purchase. There are a number of
April 23, 1990

questions about the whole issue of the CF-18s. Would the minister go beyond having an internal inquiry and have a full public inquiry on the CF-18s and their safety?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to address some of the outstanding questions.
There has been the allegation that there has been a reduction-some have suggested by 3 per cent-in the hours flown by CF-18 pilots. That is not accurate. What has been reduced is the number of pilots who are flying. Therefore, the reduction of 3 per cent does not affect fighter pilots and their ability to train.
I am not aware of the problems of the purchase that the hon. member has mentioned. There is a full review done by the standing committee whose responsibility this is over the lifetime of the purchase. This purchase was undertaken in 1979. The Hon. Allan McKinnon was the member responsible for the Department of National Defence when I first recall discussions on CF-18s. We have rectified some problems that were identified. We have communicated with McDonnell Douglas. We have suspended the shipment during the purchase time until some faults that had been identified were corrected.
Again, I say to the hon. member that there is no one more concerned about the safety of the men and women who fly on behalf of Canada than the Air Command, the Fighter Command leaders, and the squadron leaders.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. I am sure that the Minister himself is also concerned about safety and I would not in any way suggest that he is not, nor are the members of our Armed Forces.
But I am also told by my colleague that there has been no reference to the standing committee in six years to discuss the CF-18s. We know that there are double the number of fatalities and accidents in Canada with the CF-18s than there are in the U.S. with the same planes.

My question is for the Minister of National Defence. These fighter planes are dangerous; that is obvious. People have died, lives are in danger. Will the minister
Oral Questions
announce today that he will immediately cancel low-level tactical training flights of these planes until a public inquiry is held on the CF-18s and the accidents in which these fighters have been involved?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the moratorium is on operational training which will take place in Canada. That moratorium is for the next 48 hours until 0900 hours on April 25.
The hon. member suggests that there has been no scrutiny by the standing committee of the purchase of the CF-18s. The standing committee does the Estimates every year and has every opportunity to ask questions of the minister and the department. The standing committee is the master of its own destiny and can decide what it will do and when it will do it.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Defence. I would hope then, as the minister has outlined, that the standing committee will review the CF-18s and support a public inquiry.
There is another much larger issue. Canada continues to spend millions of dollars building such things as forward operating bases in the Northwest Territories, the need for which has disappeared as has the need for Cruise missile testing and low-level attack training.
Will the minister admit that now is the time for the government to open up to full public inquiry not just the question of the CF-18s but our full defence policy in Canada? We know the 1987 White Paper is outdated. Is it not time now for a public inquiry into the whole defence policy for Canada?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, all members of the House recognize the geopolitical change that is taking place in the world and we all welcome it. Some of us may not be as confident as the hon. member that the instability that we see today, caused by these changes, can best be addressed by all of us carrying an umbrella and saying that peace has been declared.

April 23, 1990
Oral Questions


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to members' attention the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Elizabeth Dole, United States Secretary of Labour and the Hon. Robert Dole, United States Senate Minority Leader.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I wish also to draw to members' attention, the presence in the gallery of His Excellency, Mario Machungo, Prime Minister of the People's Republic of Mozambique.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, this morning in a public forum the former Secretary General of the Brundtland Commission said:
When I hear we are world leaders on the environment, I cringe with
embarrassment.
It is no wonder that tens of thousands of Canadians felt they had to demonstrate in defence of the earth yesterday. The government has acted only seven times to charge polluters under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act since it was passed.
When is the Prime Minister going to take change of a divided cabinet and set some national direction on the environment?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, any divisions in the Liberal Party I cannot take responsibility for.
I can speak, however, for a strong, united cabinet and government behind a Minister of the Environment whose record was approved by Mrs. Brundtland.
My friend referred to the Secretary General of the Brundtland Commission. She should refer to the Chairman of the Brundtland Commission, the former Prime Minister of Norway, Mrs. Brundtland, who said that Canada's record in the environment was one of which all Canadians should be proud.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. He is obviously not aware that Madam Brundtland very
recently said it was time for Canada to act instead of just talk.
The minister of energy says we have to wait for international action before we move on emissions reduction. The Minister of the Environment says the price of inaction is too high to wait. Now, which of these ministers speaks for the cabinet? Will the Prime Minister tell us which of these ministers is expressing the environmental policy of his government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to look at any quote that my hon. friend purports to have from Mrs. Brundtland. I may read an official statement by Mrs. Brundtland. When she was Prime Minister and chairman of the UN commission, she noted and I quote: "There is the leadership role that Canada plays in international affairs and, in particular, in the ongoing international work to achieve sustainable development-We did have a hard time on the commission and we were very fortunate to have the complete support and leadership of the Canadian Government".
I would also draw to my hon. friend's attention a statement by Foreign Minister Shevardnadze, last December, who said that "Canada, however, was one of the first to place questions of environmental protection on the international agenda and has achieved remarkable successes in this area".
All international leaders recognize that while our record is not perfect, it is one of which all Canadians should be proud, and I think all Canadians are, except certain people in the Liberal party.


ATLANTIC FISHERIES
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Beausejour):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries.
Last week, the minister made most insulting statements about Atlantic fishing communities to the effect that the workers and fishermen use fishing only to qualify for unemployment insurance.
Is the minister prepared today to take this opportunity to apologize to these communities and to withdraw these most offensive remarks?
April 23, 1990

Oral Questions


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I am not surprised that a Liberal rises in the House to express indignation when someone talks about unemployment insurance. Those people left the Atlantic region, like Newfoundland, with an unemployment rate of 23 per cent when they left power in 1984. Today we have got the rate down to around 18 per cent. It is still too high, we want to do more and we are disgusted with those who want to encourage the defeated politicians in the Senate to try to block a bill which would provide training for our Atlantic workers so they can earn a living like everyone else.


Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Prime Minister. A minister who, in addition to wanting to close down the fishing industry, insults the fishing community certainly no longer deserves their respect.
Will the Prime Minister apologize for the insulting remarks of the Minister of Fisheries-who has just repeated them, incidentally-and will he ask for the immediate resignation of that minister and appoint a new minister who will restore peace in the fishing sector instead of stirring up trouble?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to give the hon. member a copy of my Halifax statement to the people of the fishing industry.
He is trying to make the residents of the Atlantic provinces believe that the government wants to keep people on the unemployment insurance rolls. What I said in Halifax, and I do not apologize for my remarks, is that in the past and particularly under the previous administration the only option left to the people of the Atlantic provinces was to be unemployed.
Well, I know the people of the Atlantic provinces, Mr. Speaker, they are brave and they want to work.


Fernand Robichaud: You do not know them very well!


Bernard Valcourt: There he goes again, he thinks they are lazy. Mr. Speaker, members opposite seem to think that the residents of the Atlantic provinces should be quite satisfied with drawing unemployment benefits. What I said, as the royal commission of inquiry had stated in Newfoundland, is that our system has let down the people of Atlantic Canada and that we want to correct the situation but not on the backs of the fishermen!


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. Apparently in celebration of earth day, the Minister of Energy said that Canada would have to ban cars in major cities to meet national standards for cutting air pollution. The minister of energy has rejected Canada's international commitment to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases, a threat described by the Toronto conference as one greater than that of nuclear war, and rejected a report that found that every man, woman and child in Canada could save $5,000 in energy costs while reducing emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
Will the Minister of the Environment today, following Earth Day, take this opportunity to revoke and reject those dangerous and false points of view put out by his colleague and implement now those steps that the minister knows are cost-effective and available now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in Canada?


Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I had the pleasure and the honour to attend the White House conference on the environment last week. The minister of energy and I were together when I made the commitment in front of the conference that Canada would include targets and schedules to reduce CO2 emissions in The Green Plan next fall.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. I take it that he accepts the three statements that have been made publicly by his colleague which will not warm the hearts of the majority of Canadians.
During the celebration of Earth Day over the weekend, many British Columbians protested federal policies which allow our ports and coastal waters to be used by nuclear powered and nuclear armed vessels. Since the United States plans to use and access Back Island in Alaska, making use of Canadian waters, will the minister launch a full environmental impact assessment into the health and safety potential impacts of an accident from one of these vessels on Canadians, or does the minister

April 23, 1990
Oral Questions
view this as an issue less serious than that of oil tanker safety?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member frequently in this House has made statements designed to create alarm on the west coast and elsewhere about policies with respect to the United States.
There are discussions with the United States with regard to plans that they might have concerning transit of their vessels in our waters. We are monitoring those discussions. We are making sure that Canadian interests are taken fully account of, and we are certainly going to ensure that Canadian interests are protected, including Canada's interest in being part of an effective international defence alliance of which port visits are an important part.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I also have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. He seems to be under some confusion as to what he said in Halifax and I will tell him. I have got the transcript. He said: "They, fish plant workers and fishermen, will all work for 10 weeks and then sit down for 42 weeks". He said in Halifax: "All they got going for them is enough patience to qualify for UI". That is what he said. I want to tell him something else. In Rose Blanche as an example, 147 fishermen caught 4 million pounds, Prime Minister, in three months-


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to put his question.


Roger Simmons: As I was saying, they work for 12 months in Rose Blanche and elsewhere, not 10 weeks.
How does the minister square his silly statement with the facts? The only sin of those people is that they want to work year round, which they could do if his government had the guts to drive the French, the Spanish and the Portuguese out so they could catch the fish.


An hon. member:: What was the question?


Roger Simmons: How does he square the two?
Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Fisheries and
Oceans): Mr. Speaker, it will give me great pleasure to give the hon. member a copy of my speech.


Roger Simmons: I have it.


Bernard Valcourt: Well, I think you will need a good researcher. I have never said that.
Atlantic Canadians have been listening to these people in the last few weeks. What people in Atlantic Canada are telling us is that the fishery is an important part of our heritage and our economic life and people want to keep fishing. The fishermen and the plant workers should have the chance and should be given the ability to develop this trade as a skilful one by which they can earn a decent income.
In the past we have seen other branches of government at all levels, municipal, provincial and federal use the fishery as the scapegoat for all the economic problems. I say as the representative of the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada that we in the fishing industry are tired of being the scapegoat for others and we will not endure it any longer.


Roger Simmons: The
minister can squirm and twist all he wants. He said: "I never said it". This is a transcript of the question and his answer and I tell him he said it. He said that they want to sit down for 42 weeks-


Some hon. members:: Question!


Roger Simmons: I can't let him mislead the House, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure that no members would want to mislead the House. I notice that the hon. member has certainly not said "deliberately", but I would ask the hon. member to put his question.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for the minister. After his two weeks of homework and field-tripping across this great country, is this the result? Is his decision and strategy for dealing with the crisis and the disaster in the Atlantic fishery that he is going to kick those people when they are down? Is that his response, or is he going to recognize that those people have been working year-round until this government's policies made them sit at home because there are no fish left to catch? Is he going to come to their rescue with an aid program and then get on with flicking out the foreigners before they take all of our fish?
April 23, 1990


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. member go back to his own riding and talk to the people in Gaultois-


Roger Simmons: I did, two days ago.


Bernard Valcourt: -and ask them if this is what we are doing. We have introduced measures in Atlantic Canada to help these communities and these people. The difference is that this government will not impose anything on these people. We will get them to be the architects of their own development by participating in it. We are going to be helpful, that is what we are going to do.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Agriculture. It is almost a month now since the minister announced an aid program both for western farmers and farmers right across the country who are facing serious financial difficulties. Saskatchewan farmers face an 87 per cent reduction in net farm income this year. Seeding is about to begin in many parts of the prairies. I wonder why the government has set up such a complicated formula for getting assistance to these farmers in such a cynical way. Why has the government set up a formula which is not getting the money to the farmers now when they need it?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, of course we are eager to get assistance into the hands of the farmers, particularly for seeding time. The hon. member might do well to encourage his friends in the provincial governments across the country to join with the federal government in putting together a comprehensive program because that has been our style.
We have been working very closely, because agriculture is a shared responsibility between the two levels of government, and that is indicative of a process that we are going through in terms of a very comprehensive review in respect of agriculture policies in the future.
Our five-point program is on the table, $500 million is there, and we are asking the provinces to help in the process to provide this kind of interim support that our
Oral Questions
farmers need at this particular time so they can get their crops into the ground.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, surely enough the minister has put the money on the table. The problem is that many provinces cannot afford to match those funds. The money is desperately needed, not in July, not in September, not in November, it is needed now.
Is the minister prepared to pay out that money from the federal government right now because it is needed for the seeding across the west and in other parts of the country, without waiting until the provinces work out a very complicated process?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that progress is being made. It is not all negative as the hon. member suggests. Discussions are going on at the official level and at the ministerial level.
It is interesting to note that some of the provinces are coming through with balanced budgets. I think the hon. member may want to reflect on whether they have the ability to support. If agriculture is important to the provinces such as Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta, and others, then they should be in a position to support it as we have and as we are as a federal government that has stood behind the farmers in good times and bad times. We are there today and we will be there tomorrow.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In addition to the problems which my colleague from Algoma has put before the minister, the minister has been quick to tell the fanners that there were three very recent hikes in Farm Credit Corporation interest. The farmers are still waiting for any kind of word as to when they will receive the federal funds in this emergency program.
Can the minister tell us if he has reached any agreement with any of the provinces and when will those cheques be in the hands of the farmers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, the discussions are ongoing and a number of the provinces have indicated a willingness to participate with the federal government. We have indicated, in turn, that we would be very

April 23, 1990
Oral Questions
flexible in terms of giving the provinces credit for programs that they have come up with that will help in bringing the income level of the farmers up for the very disastrous year that we face in 1990.
Our money is on the table, it is ready to be there as soon as we can finalize the respective agreements with each of the provinces. It is a multifaceted problem. There is a different range of problems in each of the provinces and as we develop agreements on those, the money will be available, I can assure the hon. member.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows that the federal contribution in itself is inadequate. Consequently, there is a need for more money and a need for money out there right now.
The farmers are already in the fields. They are already planting in southern Saskatchewan, even as far north as Saskatoon.
Will the farmers now have to wait while there is more federal-provincial wrangling to even receive this minimal assistance? Why does the minister not pay out the money that he has available and do his bickering with the provinces later?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we felt it was important from the standpoint of the federal government to come forth and indicate our willingness, in the form of a five-point very comprehensive program, to assist agriculture in the difficulties that it is undergoing at the present time.
In addition to that, as the hon. member knows, with respect to a future comprehensive safety net program, there is an important review that is taking place in that regard. We expect our first report by this particular committee by the end of April. We hope that will provide the basis from which we can establish a new comprehensive safety net program.
In the meantime, this money and the other proposals that were advanced in our announcement at the end of March, are available. We want to work very closely with the provinces and we are.
I can assure the hon. member that our discussions are ongoing. I met with the Minister of Agriculture from the province of Alberta a couple of days ago. We will be meeting with Manitoba. Discussions are ongoing with Ontario. I can assure him that we consider this to be a very major priority. We want to get the money into the hands of farmers as soon as we possibly can.


BILL C-21
Dave Worthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. There is a growing concern by my constituents and people right across Canada about the fate of the many good programs that we promised in Bill C-21, the many training and adjustment programs that are so sorely needed right across the country.
Will the minister give us the status of that bill and indicate when she feels we will be able to deliver on those promises to my constituents.


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, it is over a year since we introduced this important piece of legislation which is part of our ongoing commitment to labour adjustment and training that has been a part of our agenda since 1984.
There are many things which I would like to be able to deliver to the hon. member, his constituents, and the constituents of all of us in this House. These include $350 million per year, ready to be spent on training for UI recipients; further assistance for welfare recipients, something which is very important for urban members particularly; increased allowances for those who are already being trained; a one-third increase which is ready for the Community Futures Program which is important for the hon. member from Newfoundland; $100 million which is ready to go to older workers and there is more assistance ready for co-op education and apprenticeship.
I realize that these programs are not only important to the people in the House, but the majority of Canadians approve of the direction in which we are going with unemployment insurance.
April 23, 1990

We were elected to the House not to watch things stand still, but to do better things for Canadians. I am very anxious to see that too.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology. On April 14, his colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, was quoted as saying that in acquiring the British firm Plessey and thus Canada's Leigh Instruments, General Electric and Siemens, "failed to show any regard for their obligations to their employees in Canada".
Would the minister tell the House why financial conditions were not imposed by Investment Canada to protect Canadian workers prior to approving the indirect acquisition of Leigh?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, first let me say that Canada has always welcomed new investors and will continue to do so. We believe that it is responsible for a lot of job creation in this country. Unlike what the former government did we believe that we can be helpful. Once again we welcome those investments.
What happened with Leigh Instruments is that it was the subject of a takeover in 1988 by Plessey. It was a takeover well accepted by the company because it opened markets and new technology for the company, particularly with Micronav Landing System.
The latest takeover in 1989 by the General Electric Company has been made out to be an indirect takeover. It was done in a way that Canada could not do anything about at that time. To link that to the fact that Leigh Instruments had to declare bankruptcy last week is false. I prefer that my friend wait for the report by the trustee to know exactly what the cause of the bankruptcy is.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, Canada's willingness to welcome foreign investors in the circumstances has to be questioned when some of our best firms are being scooped up by foreign buyers and stripped of their technology and their cash.
The question from a policy point of view is this: Why is the government permitting foreign buyers to clean out strategic high technology firms like Leigh Instruments of
Oral Questions
their cash and of their intellectual wealth, leaving Canadians out of work and Canada out to lunch in the field of high technology?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I never trust Liberal policy in terms of investment and I will not start today. We know exactly what it gave in 1982, 1983, 1984. My friend is wrong. The Plessey takeover was good and was requested by Leigh Instruments for new technology. The best example, Mr. Speaker, is that Micronav got the contract about MLS because they had the expertise and technology of Plessey. If it is a bad deal we should have had that kind of deal 10 years ago; it would have been better for Canada.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. I have confirmation from industry sources that a large Toronto-based vegetable oil refinery has purchased 10 million pounds of subsidized soya bean oil from the European Common Market.
In view of the fact that Canadian supplies are adequate, Ontario soya bean processing plants are running at less than capacity, and some western oilseeds plants are shut down, can the minister advise this House what action will be taken to stop this dumping and to protect the Canadian-based oilseed producers and processors?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would have to look into that and perhaps the hon. member would allow me to take that question as notice.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lambton- Middlesex, a short supplemental.


Ralph Ferguson: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that Spain has imported the soya beans from Brazil, United States or Paraguay, processed them and used the meal as a protein supplement in livestock and poultry feeds and yet are exporting the oil to protect their own olive oil industry, can the minister assure this House that those beans were not produced using pesticides, herbicides and chemicals that

April 23, 1990
Privilege
are banned in Canada and could create a health hazard for Canadian consumers?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the question has an undertone of a lot of allegations which I would want to check into very carefully. I am sure the hon. member would not want to leave the impression that there are some allegations which may or may not be substantiated.


FUNDING FOR WOMEN'S CENTRES
Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In 1987 his government endorsed the Fairness and Funding report of the Standing Committee of the Secretary of State. This report recommended operational funding for women's organizations. After he left his meeting last week with women's centres representatives, his undersecretary called the Fairness and Funding report a worthless piece of paper.
Does the Secretary of State agree with his deputy's analysis of a government-endorsed report and, if so, what other government-endorsed reports are also worthless pieces of paper?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, I accept neither the premise nor the hypothesis of the question.
A meeting was held between myself and representatives of women's centres from coast to coast. It was a very good meeting. Together we have agreed to try to work out a process for a future for the women's centres in partnership, of course, with the provinces and with others who may have a strong interest in the matter. I believe they understand very clearly what the reality of the current situation is: that there is less money now available. That is why core funding was discontinued. We have agreed to get back to them as early as possible after we have had a thorough review of the suggestions we are looking at together.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State indicated that he discussed with these women a process for funding women's centres. In the meantime, centre after centre is locking its doors and closing down. They are unable to help the women coming to them for information and referrals for battered women.
When is the Secretary of State going to ensure that these women's centres that are now closed will be opened and continue to serve the needs of women in this country?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, the process is well under way. The meeting I was privileged to participate in went very well. From what I understand the representatives of women's centres appeared to be pleased as well.
I do not preclude that the people working in women's centres may not be desirous of putting in applications right now for project funding, which is available. If applications are completed right now, we will be very helpful in seeing that they are expedited, and funds for projects can continue to roll even while we examine whatever process they want me to look at.


PRIVILEGE
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege on a matter that I brought to the attention of the Chair last week. Mr. Speaker, you will recall that on April 18, 1990 I wrote to you concerning what I believe to be a matter of privilege. On that date a story appeared in The Toronto Star alleging that a letter printed on House of Commons stationery signed by someone who is not a current member of the House of Commons had been circulating in the United States and some 100,000 copies of this letter had been sent to a number of American citizens.
Upon verification, I did obtain a copy of the material in question and I will take a moment or two to summarize it for the benefit of the Chair.
I want to say at the outset-


Mr. Andre:: Point of order.


Don Boudria: Since when does a point of order-
April 23, 1990


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: A point of order does not take precedence over a question of privilege, Harvie. Learn the rules.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Government House Leader.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to interfere with a legitimate point of privilege.


An hon. member:: Sit down.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, as I am aware and as the hon. member is aware, Mr. Stewart, upon hearing this accusation faxed a letter-


Mr. Speaker:: First of all, I think I should tell the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that probably I have the material to which he is referring. In all fairness, except for the letter I have not heard the point of privilege set out. If the hon. member is referring to a text I will continue to hear him.
I do want to say this to the hon. member. The content of the letter does not concern me because various members may have different views of this. A letter could be sent that all members would think is completely appropriate. The question is whether or not it is appropriate to send it out, or for somebody to send it out, apparently under the guise of House of Commons stationery. That is the point.
I know what the hon. House Leader is getting at. I do not think at this stage it is appropriate to bring into the discussion any reflection on the former hon. member. The point I have to decide is whether whoever put this out has done something which breaches the privileges of the House.


Don Boudria: Thank you for your assistance. Perhaps the Government House Leader can listen attentively and then will find out what I am saying and who I am accusing and not accusing. For anyone to come to that judgment before I speak is somewhat premature. But, of course, he wouldn't know that.
First of all, let us review the definition of privilege. As Mr. Speaker will know, parliamentary privilege according to Erskine May's twenty-first edition, page 69 is stated as being:
- the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House -
At issue here is whether or not there has been an offence against the House or against any member of
Privilege
Parliament individually. Of course, the House itself enjoys privilege as well as individual members. I do think that this is an important point to raise at the beginning of this discussion.
It is not my intention to comment on the content of the letter in question. What I want to bring to the attention of the Speaker is the form of the letter. I have brought this to the attention of the Speaker and I do believe I have given him a copy of the letter. If not, of course, I am willing to provide a copy of the material immediately at the conclusion of my remarks.
Basically described, the material is as follows: it has a letterhead of the House of Commons and the Arms of Canada. At the top, left-hand side is an inscription which states, "Ronald A. Stewart, M.P., Simcoe South". On the right-hand side is: Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Supply and Services. Carrying on to the signature block of the letter it states: "Ron Stewart, M.P. (Ret)".
Mr. Speaker, that is perhaps the first point that we should discuss. There are a number of points and I intend to be brief. The Oxford American Dictionary, 1982 gives three meanings for ret., retain, retire or return.
The point I am making to you, Mr. Speaker, is that there is at least a difference between the signature block and the top of the letter in question. That difference is attributed by a spokesperson on behalf of the group known as English First to the fact that they themselves superimpose the House of Commons crest inscription along with the indications at the top of the letter on material already provided to them by Mr. Ronald Stewart.
I would like to draw a parallel for a moment so that all members of this House understand. If, for instance, a group in Canada, say the Alliance for the Preservation of English decided to use the Arms of the President of the United States in material that it was circulating here in Canada, I am sure that we would hear of it and I believe rightfully so, just as we are, rightfully in my opinion, raising this issue today. First there is the issue of the member of Parliament, Ret. I do not believe that it is the custom in this country, and perhaps you can verify it, as to whether or not there is a precedent for using the term Member of Parliament, Ret. After all, as I indicated in my correspondence with Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs does not describe

April 23, 1990
Privilege
himself, that I have ever heard, as the Prime Minister Ret., even though at one point he did hold that position.


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member for a moment. Not to take anything away from the cogency of his argument, but the hon. member is inviting the Chair to look at three different definitions of the abbreviation.
I have to say that unless there was some very cogent evidence indeed, I would take the view that that meant retired, unless the hon. member has some other strong argument. The difficulty again is that I would like the hon. member to stick to the basic story. Then what I have to decide eventually is if there is sufficient prima facie evidence to put the very kind of question to a committee. Hon. members will realize that it is not the place of the Speaker to delve into all the intricacies of what might eventually be a proposition of evidence or an argument on it.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, let me move on to the next point that I want to bring to the attention of the Chairman.
First of all, Your Honour will recall that on May 6, 1985 there was a case which was decided upon by Mr. Speaker at that time, wherein an ad had been placed in a newspaper in Toronto by someone acting on behalf of another individual who no longer was a member of Parliament. About this particular ad the Chairman ruled-I read from Hansard of May 6, 1985 at page 4439:
It should go without saying that a Member of Parliament needs to perform his function effectively and that anything tending to cause confusion as to a Member's identity, creates the possibility of an impediment to the fulfilment of that Member's functions.
If that argument applies to a member of Parliament individually, then I suggest that it apply similarly to the House collectively. I read further from Mr. Speaker's decision at that time:
Any action which impedes or tends to impede a Member in the discharge of his duties is a breach of privilege.
That was the decision with regard to that case, which was ruled on by Mr. Speaker on May 6, 1985.
I want to bring two more matters, very quickly, to the attention of the Chairman. First, Section 80 of the Parliament of Canada Act makes it against the rules for anyone to call any kind of a business establishment "Parliament Hill", the implication being that you cannot
associate something with this Parliament when it does not have anything to do with this Parliament.
By extension, the group in the United States, by utilizing the material in question for promotional purposes in that country, I would suggest what it is doing is inappropriate.
There are two more issues that I want to bring to your attention. One is the fact that a spokesperson, acting on behalf of English First, stated with regard to the use of the title block that I have just described, and the signature of the former MP in the following way: "It certainly gets the point across that this is a legitimate Canadian spokesman who has an important message."
Even the people who put this message together in the United States were doing so to let people believe that someone in Canada in an office of authority was responsible for getting this message across.
When information is disseminated in this manner, either in Canada or abroad, by someone who is not a member of Parliament but who is, as he described himself in one section of the letter, "Member of Parliament, Ret.", or if one looks at the letterhead-granted, some people have admitted that they superimposed this-the implication is that this House or a member of this House either, while in office or after being out of office but still with the use of the letterhead and therefore claiming to have something to do with this institution, then I believe that all the privileges of members of Parliament and this House have been affected by what has happened.
There is a further matter, and that is the matter of the envelope in question that was utilized, wherein the Coat of Arms of Canada was employed without the inscription "House of Commons." That could be an issue involving the law rather than this House, so I will not discuss it any further except to state that I hope that the Secretary of State, who is responsible for the keeping of the Coat of Arms of Canada, will address that issue, because after all, he is the custodian of it.
Also, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs should be made aware of the provisions of the Trademarks Act, which prevents the utilization of our Coat of Arms for anything else than official government purposes.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to express to you that if you deem that there is a prima facie case of privilege in this case, with the information that I brought
April 23, 1990

to the attention of the House today, and with the information provided in correspondence last week, that I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
There is just one final point that I wanted to bring to the attention of the Chair. The House of Commons Members' Manual, chapter H-3, page 13, dated November, 1988 states the following about the unauthorized use of parliamentary stationery, and these are instructions for members of parliament who are retiring.
In order to preclude the unauthorized use by others of official materials, (e.g. stationery containing the Members's letterhead) supplied to Members by the House, former Members are advised to safely dispose of such material after the election.
This is the House of Commons Members' Manual from which I just quoted.
The individual in question, Mr. Ronald Stewart, is quoted by the media as stating that he had a "hunk" of this material and that there was nothing against the law in him using it. Well, the House does not concern itself with the legal aspects, but with whether or not our privileges are affected by someone who may use such material later.
I suggest to you that, notwithstanding any law, instructions are quite clear to former Members of Parliament that they are to dispose of such material. Hence, it should not be used either by them or by any other person acting on their behalf, wilfully or otherwise.
I want to thank the House for its indulgence in allowing me to bring this matter to the attention of all Members of Parliament. I close by saying that my purpose here is not to refer to the comments of the member. I happen to disagree with them, but I suppose we have a right to agree or disagree with each other in the House from time to time. That is what debate is all about. That is not the point.
Nor is it the point to state that Mr. Stewart himself caused those blocks to be at the top of the letter. After all, he says he did not do it and someone else has actually said that they did. The point is that that material, in several thousands of copies, has been distributed to individuals, misleading them to believe that in some way the House, or a representative of the House, was
Privilege
associated with it. In that way, I do believe that the privileges of the House collectively have been affected.


Mr. Speaker:: I am going to hear the hon. Government House Leader and then I will come to the hon. member for Kamloops.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this matter could have been dealt with 10 or 12 minutes ago if the hon. member had allowed it.


Don Boudria: If you hadn't interrupted. Do you like being interrupted?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell was listened to courteously and gave his argument. The hon. House leader did rise on a point of order but-


Don Boudria: To interrupt!


Mr. Speaker:: Well, he may have interrupted but he made his point and then sat down. He certainly gave the hon. member every chance to make his argument and I think the same courtesy must be extended to the hon. House leader.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the newspaper article in question, which alleged that a former member of the House had sent out on House of Commons stationery a letter to an American organization proffering advice on how it might treat a certain issue in the U.S., was immediately reacted to by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell with some concern that this should happen and an indication that he intended to raise a question of privilege in the House.
That former member of the House, Ron Stewart, then faxed to Your Honour, to me, and to the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, a letter categorically denying that he, on stationery of the House of Commons, sent out that letter-


Don Boudria: Did I say he had?


Harvie Andre: -and, Mr. Speaker,-


Don Boudria: Try again!


Mr. McDermid:: Shut up!


Mr. Speaker:: Please! I think hon. members should listen. The hon. House Leader.


Don Boudria: Point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Harvie Andre: The rat pack just can't help behaving like a rodent. Mr. Speaker, the-

April 23, 1990
Privilege


An hon. member:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: It would help the Chair if I was allowed to listen to the hon. House leader.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the former member of the House, Mr. Stewart, wrote a letter to the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the Chair, myself, and others, categorically denying the contents of that news story.
Furthermore, the recipient of the letter, who dispersed it apparently throughout his membership in the United States, wrote to the Speaker and the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, myself, and others stating explicitly that he, in fact, had taken the letter from Ron Stewart on plain stationery, had affixed to it the letterhead of the House of Commons with the title of former parliamentary secretary, had affixed to it the block, and had himself sent out bogus propaganda material. This is an American citizen who did this.
He said to the hon. member that he had done that. He said that in no way, shape or form did he ask Mr. Stewart's permission to do that. For the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, in view of that information-


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


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the best way to proceed would be to let the hon. House leader finish. I will come back to the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
I must remind all hon. members that in these matters it is a prima facie case that the Speaker must decide. It is not necessary for the Speaker to sort out all the facts.
Will the hon. House leader continue, please.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, there has been the categorical denial by the former member of the House. There has been the categorical admission by the American who received this letter that he was the one who had improperly affixed the Coat of Arms of the House of Commons, and so on, to a letter received by him on plain white stationery. And, it seems pretty obviously, there is the original concern about which the hon. member had expressed his indignation is his raising of November 1988 members' manual-interestingly enough a manual that was released to Members of Parliament after Mr. Stewart was no longer here. He was supposed to somehow
anticipate what was in the future manual to be given to members, had he run for election. That notwithstanding, it is a side issue.
It is pretty clear that it is not acceptable for Americans, Australians, Indonesians or anybody else to take the stationery of the Canadian House of Commons and, on the basis of that, to fraudulently put onto a letter of any sort this Coat of Arms, to claim that it was sent out under some official status, and to use that for their purposes. That is obvious.
While the privileges of the House are very important, I do not know how we can extend those beyond the borders of Canada. If there is a way, I would certainly have no objection to getting that American up to the Bar of the House of Commons and having him explain how he has abused the privileges of the House, because he most certainly has. But it is an American who has done something in the United States. This is not a Canadian.
I think it is less than honourable and I am disappointed that the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell should seek to malign the former member by raising a point of privilege about his activities, which is not justified in this case. This American has abused the House, to be sure. There is no problem in that regard. By what means would he propose that we could somehow bring our privileges to bear on people who live outside the boundaries of this country?
The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, after interrupting me six times, is still not hearing what I have to say because he keeps talking. He cannot hear without his mouth in action, apparently.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: The unfortunate situation, I thought, was closed, and should have been closed. In an earlier day of more honourable behaviour, it would have been closed a long time ago.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Mr. Speaker, as you know I, too, filed a notice with you on April 18 after reading the report in the newspaper.
I listened with interest when the government House leader said that, yes, indeed, he agrees that the privileges of the House have been breached. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker-and I take him for his word-I think this is a serious matter. How we deal with it most appropriately would be open to some question. The fact that the government House leader has indicated that he, too,
April 23, 1990

sees this as a breach of privilege indicates the seriousness of what we are discussing.
Some may argue that since the member in question is no longer a member from Simcoe South, there is no risk of confusion in terms of what the member has or has not done and, therefore, there are likely no privileges that have been breached. I would argue to the contrary, that as long as there is some confusion over who is and who is not a member, it affects all of our abilities to perform as members. In that sense, any individual appearing to-


Mr. Speaker:: There seem to be some salient facts here. There does not seem to be any doubt at the moment, at least in the Chamber, that the hon. former member referred to is no longer a member. There may have been some doubt in the United States as to whether he was or was not, but has there been any doubt here?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I do not suppose there has ever been any doubt. As a matter of fact, there no longer is a member for Simcoe South, so the matter has changed significantly.
Joseph Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, at page 195, describes one class of contempt as being "the interference with the corporate rights of the House". It states:
When the corporate rights of the House are interfered with in
some way, the "breach of privilege" could result in the offender
being held in contempt of the House -
Surely, the House of Commons shares the same corporate rights as other corporate bodies, including the important right to claim sole use of our Coat of Arms, stationery, and freedom from the misrepresentation of our views by others.
What has become clear, as a result of communications from a variety of people, is that someone decided to masquerade as a Member of Parliament, or to set up a previous Member of Parliament as being an existing Member of Parliament and having advocated something most of us find unacceptable-the opposition to linguistic duality in our country. Thousands of these letters have been sent out, allegedly signed by the previous
Privilege
member from Simcoe South with the use of his name and stationery in one form or another.
Surely, when someone has misrepresented a previous member, it is something that we ought to be very concerned about. Therefore, I think the reference of this matter to the appropriate committee would be more than appropriate. If we do not, are we in a sense saying that any organization that wants to manufacture a letterhead using the names of existing or previous members of Parliament, the Coat of Arms of Canada, or whatever other set of symbols, is appropriate? Are we simply going to say that we have nothing to say about the misrepresentation and misuse of stationery, and, by implication, a former member's or perhaps even a present member's name? I think it is very serious and something must be done.
Since we have had new information, whether or not there has been a contempt of the House by the previous member, I think, can be set aside. Nevertheless, someone or some organization is masquerading as a previous Member of Parliament in expressing a very disgusting viewpoint. At least, I would like to think that everyone here would consider it disgusting.
I support the views put forward by my hon. friend speaking on behalf of the Liberals. As I indicated in my letter to you of April 18, if you find a prima facie case of contempt of the House in this case, I, too, would encourage the appropriate motion to be put.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened to argument and I promised the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell that I would give him a short reply. I point out to him that I think I have the salient facts, also the argument and issue.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I only want to take one or two moments and I would like to get the attention of the government House leader briefly.
It is against the Standing Orders of this House to say that someone else has maligned, is guilty of malignity, or deliberately maligned. I do believe that that remark was made about me by the government House leader in reference to Mr. Stewart.
In no way did I say that Mr. Stewart was-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may very well have a point. In order to keep this tidy, I would ask him to not

April 23, 1990
Privilege
make it in the midst of this argument. He has put the argument with respect to the publication in cogent terms and that is what I have to decide. If there is another matter that may have to be raised as a consequence of some comment made in the argument, I will hear that at the appropriate time.


Don Boudria: There is just one final argument that I want to present to the Chair and to all hon. members on this issue and that is the following: Whether the offence has been committed in this country or anywhere else is not what should concern the House at this point. It may very well be that in the end the parliamentary committee looking into the issue will determine that it is not able to obtain redress, but that is a matter which I do not believe the Speaker should be looking at, with respect, at this point.
I think the Speaker should be concerned with whether or not there is a prima facie case of privilege and then an appropriate motion could be moved and the parliamentary committee could obtain information or seek to obtain redress. If it deems that there are appropriate measures, it can decide so at that point.
The Government House Leader did state in his remarks that he believed as well, and I am paraphrasing what he said, that there could be an offence against the privileges of this House but that the offence, I believe he said, was committed outside of the borders of this country. There seems at least to be unanimity on all sides of the House from those remarks, if I am paraphrasing correctly what the minister said, to the effect that there is indeed a prima facie case of privilege. I wanted to bring those concluding remarks to the attention of the Chairman and I want to bring the other matter once these deliberations have concluded.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened to hon. members, the Government House Leader, the hon. member for Kamloops, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and I have the material in front of me. I have looked at it and I will look at it again in light of the comments that have been made. It would seem very clear that with respect to our former colleague that it would seem to be at the first opportunity he extended to hon. members an explanation as to his position on that matter. In any
event I will consider the matter carefully and report back to the House as soon as I can.
I have another question of privilege. I think looking at this in the terms of the priorities I will hear the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead.


REMARKS MADE IN HALIFAX BY THE HON. MEMBER FOR YORK SOUTH-WESTON
Mr. Francois Gerin (Megantic-Compton -Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, during a Liberal leadership forum held yesterday in Halifax, the hon. member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) made remarks that were widely reported in Canada,-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: He is not here. It should wait.


François Gérin: -slanders Quebecers as a whole, insults and violates the privileges of many members of this House, even though they have not been named. The remarks that were made and reported are that Quebec separatists are traitors to Canada and no better than racists and bigots, that they are therefore guilty of treason, which is perhaps the most serious crime in our Criminal Code. He even had the nerve to name specific Members of this House to illustrate what he had just said.
Mr. Speaker, Quebecers as a whole were shocked by the remarks made by the Hon. Member.


Guy St-Julien: It is disgusting!


François Gérin: To all these Quebecers, it is another insult in the current Constitutional debate.
Mr. Speaker, in 1980, over 40 per cent of Quebecers voted democratically in favor of sovereignty for Quebec and many members of this House also voted yes to the question asked in the referendum. Today that number could be as high or perhaps even much higher.
That debate was extremely democratic. By levelling charges of treason, a crime defined in the Criminal Code as involving violence, the hon. member for York South- Weston and Liberal leadership candidate, attacks certain members of this House and puts them and all of us under a cloud. It is a very serious problem, Mr. Speaker. I know that the hon. member is not here today and that that statement was not made in this House. It is nonetheless an issue and, based on the case law and precedents set in this House, any statement affecting a
April 23, 1990

number of members of this House, even if it was made outside the House, constitutes a problem which must be considered immediately by the Chair and by the House.
Mr. Speaker, Quebec's right to self-determination is fundamental. It is a sacred right, and inalienable right and a capital right in the present Constitutional debate. However, that debate must be democratic. Those who believe in it will work democratically and believe in the sovereinty of a Canadian province. That is in no way criminal, nor is it racist or bigot.
I therefore request three things, Mr. Speaker: that the whole of this House immediately denounce the terms used by the member for York South-Weston; that the House immediately demand public apologies from the member and that the House solemnly reaffirm Quebec's right to self-determination.


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened rather carefully to the Hon. Member's comments. However, we have a problem today because the Hon. Member for York South-Weston is absent. He is no doubt occupied elsewhere and I think that the Chair, is keeping with our tradition should request the House's permission to now ajoum the matter until such time as arrangements can be made with the other Hon. Member to secure his presence here. For this reason, I ask all Hon. Members to allow the Chair to make arrangements with the Hon. Member for York South-Weston to secure his presence here at a later date. I understand that other Hon. Members wish to deal with this issue, which would certainly be proper, but I would ask them to wait until the Hon. Member for York South-Weston is present.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief. The Hon. Member for Megan-tic-Compton-Stanstead clearly referred to a comment which was made outside the House and which has not affected any Hon. Member, either individually or collectively.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I do not understand. I said that the comment was made outside the House, which is absolutely true.


Mr. Blais:: Indirectly!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No Member of the House has been affected-
Privilege


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. member:: Read again the newspaper articles!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -either directly or indirectly.


Mr. Speaker:: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, but the point he raised is in fact that on which the House must reach a decision and on which the Speaker must provide a ruling. That is why I would ask all hon. members to allow me to adjourn this matter now, so that the Chairman can have a conversation with the hon. member and agree on how the matter should be pursued. During the debate, of course, all other members will have a chance to make themselves heard.
I see that a number of members would like to speak now. If it is really urgent, perhaps, but-


Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that you want the hon. member to be present, but there should not be a delay in terms of weeks or months. I think tomorrow should be the latest.
This man attacked democracy itself by calling those who are considering constitutional options criminals. That is unacceptable!


Mr. Speaker:: All right. We have a tradition that is very clear cut, a tradition has been consistently applied for many years, which is to give a member the opportunity to be present when certain charges are made against him. This is an age-old principle which has customarily been applied in this House.
Of course I would need the consent of hon. members, but I would ask you to give the Chairman a chance to make a telephone call and make certain arrangements and secure the presence of the other member.
I don't think there will be a delay in terms of a week, two weeks or a month. I agree this is a very important matter, not only for the hon. member who raised the issue and for other members who have very strong feelings about the matter, but for all members of this House.
That is why I would ask all members to give the Chair a chance to make arrangements immediately, as soon as possible, so that we can pursue this very important matter tomorrow or perhaps Wednesday.

April 23, 1990
Privilege


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I think your suggestion is very reasonable, but since this is a very serious matter, perhaps you could let us know tomorrow after Question Period, when questions of privilege are discussed what the possibilities are, so that hon. members and especially our Quebec members, many of whom were shocked by what happened, will be able to decide, with the Chair, when the debate will take place. If the debate could take place tomorrow, that would be ideal, and otherwise Wednesday.
Perhaps we could now adjourn this debate immediately until tomorrow afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's suggestion is entirely appropriate. Perhaps after Question Period tomorrow, I will be in a position to report to the hon. member. I agree this is a very urgent matter, but we also have another very important principle, which is that all members of this House should be treated fairly. We shall wait until tomorrow.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, during the question of privilege that I raised earlier today there was a response from the hon. Government House Leader in which, and again I must paraphrase in the absence of the Hansard, he clearly accused me of maligning the former member for the riding of Simcoe South.
Mr. Speaker, first of all, to accuse someone of deliberately maligning is against the rules of this House as stated under Beauchesne. I bring it to your attention that Beauchesne's Citation 320 specifically identifies "malign" as being a word that is inappropriate.
Second, Mr. Speaker, you will also be aware that I indicated to the Chairman that I had received material which led me to believe that it was an organization in the United States which had claimed itself to have placed the letterhead on the material in question.
No where did I in fact state that Mr. Ronald Stewart had committed this act deliberately and wilfully himself, save and except the signature portion which identifies himself as a member of Parliament, RET. The other
portions I attributed to that organization in the United States. Second, even if I had said that, which I did not, I do not believe that the House leader is justified in making his accusation which is against the rules of the House in any case.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Certainly not. Very improper and Har-vie, you should have known better.


Harvie Andre: It is a day for the Liberals to give me lectures on decorum. Mr. Speaker, I have the Sixth Edition of Beauchesne's and I could not find malign in there. It is not in the Sixth edition. The hon. member has the Fifth edition. It does not appear in the Sixth edition. Knowing the hon. member's sensitive nature, I certainly would not want to offend him. After all, he has enough to bear.
While I am on my feet, in the interests of not denying hon. members the right to debate important legislation which I know hon. members have strong feelings about, perhaps I could ask if there is unanimous consent of the House to add the 45 minutes we have taken up on these points to the remainder of this day. In this way members will have an opportunity to do what we were elected to do, and that is to debate the important issues facing the country.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. House leader has made a suggestion. Is there consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there any negative?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Yes.


COMMENTS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Roger Simmons: I thank the Speaker for his indulgence. I rise on a question of privilege arising from Question Period. I want to see the actual transcript, but I believe there will be a basis for me to raise a question of privilege arising out of a response that the minister of fisheries gave me during Question Period today. I wanted now not to sit on my rights but to give notice to Mr. Speaker that I will raise it as soon as I have an opportunity to see the transcript.
April 23, 1990



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today, in both official languages, the report of the Task Force on Barriers to Women in the Public Service.

I would like to thank the members of the task force Jean Edmonds, Edna Mackenzie and Jocelyne Cote-O'Hara for their work and their contribution to this very important issue.


PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table in both official languages the government responses to 192 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Pierre Blais: Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to proclaim the week of April 23 to 29 National Consumer Week. This is the first time it has been observed, Madam Speaker. From now on, it will be held the last full week of April every year.
The main purpose of this very special week is to highlight the partnership that must exist in the Canadian market between governments, the private sector and consumers.
Routine Proceedings
This Week is the result of many initiatives taken by the ministers responsible for consumers at the federal, provincial and territorial levels. It is inspired by the many activities organized by consumers' groups in the last several years to protect Canadian consumers and improve the many products available to them on the market.

Businesses, business associations, consumer groups, schools, community groups, trade and professional associations as well as municipal governments are organizing a wide variety of activities that will further increase the public's awareness of consumer issues.
To this end Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada has put together and published an organizers' manual that was distributed to all those interested in organizing special events in their community on the theme of National Consumer Week.
The theme chosen for this first National Consumer Week is "Team Up for a Stronger Marketplace: Consumers, Business, Government". We want to show the extent to which the co-operation of all sectors is essential for an efficient and functional marketplace.

Throughout the week, Madam Speaker, I will participate in many activities across the country. Tomorrow in Montreal, I will take part in the launching of a food labelling guide. This is a very practical small guide designed to help consumers better understand the sometimes arcane language of labels.
This guide has been produced jointly by my department and many companies in the private sector and a million copies of it will be distributed everywhere during the National Week. I cannot overemphasize the co-operation and partnership behind this initiative.
Still on Thesday, I will give a speech in Toronto to a conference on intellectual property. I will be in Western Canada on Wednesday and Thursday, where I will address the Environmentally Sound Packaging Coalition in Vancouver. I also plan to visit the various offices of my department throughout the country and to meet many of my provincial colleagues to further strengthen the partnership required to make the Canadian market more dynamic.

April 23, 1990
Routine Proceedings
This year, for the third time since 1982, we organized a consumers' fair for members of this House. Ministers, members and senators had the opportunity, and still have an opportunity for a few more minutes, I think, to go right to the source of the information they can use to answer hundreds of requests from their constituents thoroughly and effectively.
More than 20 federal government departments and agencies took part in this event. I met several of my colleagues at noon today. We hope that all those who took the trouble to go among the displays were satisfied with this event today. It was an opportunity to chat with colleagues, to exchange information and also to add to one's knowledge of the services the federal government provides to help Canadian consumers.
Excellence of products and services must be our main concern and fundamental objective.
We are convinced that a well-informed consumer is more demanding, Madam Speaker. A more demanding consumer asks for better products. This in turn opens up the market more and strengthens competition, a goal we must all strive for to improve the quality of life, both for individuals and for society in general.
That is our position and our commitment. That, Madam Speaker, is the purpose of National Consumer Week. Thank you for your attention and I invite all hon. members here to promote this Week all week long.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton -Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the Minister for his speech on National Consumer Week. However, I think he made a mistake when he said it was the first time this week was held.
According to his own text, on page 3:
This year, for the third time since 1982, we organized a consumer
exhibition for parliamentarians.
It definitely was a mistake.
According to the minister's text, on page 2: Tomorrow-

Tomorrow the minister will be in Montreal for the send-off of a food labelling guide. I congratulate him on that. Finally, we will see simpler language than what is presently on labels. I would suggest to the minister that
after sending off this booklet perhaps he could make some modifications to the labelling law.
Some health claims about certain foreign products are untrue. We need to correct our laws. The processed food companies are not listing any of the contents that constitute less than 5 per cent. There are some products which can be deadly to some consumers. In the past few years we have seen children dying from eating certain products containing foods they are allergic to.
I see that this booklet will be limited to one million copies. I would suggest that the population of Canada is well over 25 million, and perhaps we should have more copies.
On the same day that the minister will be in Toronto rushing to speak to The Intellectual Property Conference, I hope he will mention that a legislative committee is presently in session on the topography of integrated circuits. This is a rather interesting legislative committee, which very few members of the government have been attending. They did attend en masse the last meeting to prevent me from having an expert from Osgoode Hall in Toronto come in to make a critique of the proposed law.
I congratulate the minister for his booklet; "Team up for a Stronger Marketplace".

Faisons equipe a un marche dynamique. I wonder whether the minister is changing the course of events by having two brochures, one for Francophones and one for Anglophones. I noticed that before, we had guides with the English version on one side and the French on the reverse, so we didn't have to write to the department twice.

In this particular booklet, "Team up for a Stronger Marketplace", which was produced for National Consumer Week, I find it rather interesting that on one of the first pages signed by the minister it states: "National Consumer Week is an opportunity to encourage a higher level of consumer awareness, education and participation in the marketplace by consumers, business and government. The goal of the week is to emphasize the marketplace partnership among these groups".
April 23, 1990

I ask the minister: What is the government doing to be a partner?
There is an an acknowledgement on the front page, thanking the National Consumer Council of the United Kingdom and the United States for all of their good suggestions. This is the source of the information for this booklet.
On page 5 there are ideas to inspire educators which I find very interesting, as will the rest of Canada. It tells educators to conduct taste tests on products such as soft drinks, snack foods, candies and so on. They are to compare name brands with generic no-name bulk foods. In other words, they can do taste tests on junk foods.
I do not know how long the minister has been out of school, but soft drinks and junk food are not part of the educational standards of schools today. Imagine suggesting these as ideas to inspire educators. I am really surprised that this kind of junk is being produced in the name of National Consumer Week.
When will the minister bring in a new Bankruptcy Act? It is an act which has not been changed in 43 years. His ministry has a revised Bankruptcy Act which has been ready for review since February of 1988, according to my sources.

I would like to point out to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs that it is the first time, in the history of Canada and the world, that a country has two consumer taxes, one at the provincial level and one at the federal level.
In concluding, Madam Speaker, I wonder what the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs did last week to encourage consumers, when the bank rate went up again.


Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to make a few comments about consumers in this week, National Consumers Week.
The minister has his own message for consumers. He talks about teaming up the business community, consum-
Routine Proceedings
ers and the government for a more effective marketplace.
I have a message that I would like consumers to think about this week. I want consumers to think about how this government has treated consumers, not just this week but for the last six years.
First, this government through the Governor of the Bank of Canada, John Crow, has followed a high interest rate policy. Think about the effects of a high interest rate policy on consumers-not only the consumers who are working but the ones who are unemployed.
Since the government was re-elected in 1988 it has increased interest rates 20 times. Some 71,000 jobs have disappeared in the manufacturing sector of this country. Some 47,599 consumers and small businesses have declared bankruptcy.


John Horton McDermid: How many new ones have been created?


John R. Rodriguez: News ones created-created where? They are all working for McDonald's and Harvey's in the service sector. These are low paying jobs, jobs with no guarantee that they will be there tomorrow. We are trading in some good, solid, challenging, interesting and well-paying jobs for a pittance. That is what we are trading them in for.
Second, how has this government treated consumers? I ask Canadians to think about it this week.
It has pursued a privatization and deregulation policy. All of this was to create a more competitive marketplace.
Madam Speaker, let us take a look at the airline industry. I think of my own municipality which wrote to the Minister of Transport since deregulation and the privatization of Air Canada in the Sudbury area. We do not have a proliferation of airlines to provide competition. What we have got are two national airlines where before we had four.
Has the price come down? No, the price has escalated. Imagine paying $350 return from Sudbury to Toronto-some 240 miles. You can fly to London, England and return for $350.
Have consumers received any more assurance of safety in the air? Not on your bippy, Madam Speaker.


John Horton McDermid: Not on her what?

April 23, 1990
Routine Proceedings


John R. Rodriguez: I am glad the minister is here. He is the minister who promised that if we got free trade it would result in lower prices to consumers. That is the third thing it promised. There is no evidence that that is happening-none at all. In fact prices are going up and up.
Fourth, the latest blow to consumers is this government's headlong dash to implement the goods and services tax on January 1, 1991. There is no more regressive tax than a sales tax. That is what the member for Mississauga South said in a speech in 1980. He said there is a no more regressive tax. Why? Because it does not respect the ability of the consumer to pay. In this particular situation the government has said: "We are removing the manufacturers' sales tax of 13.5 per cent". Are the consumers being given any assurance that they are going to get the net benefit when the 13.5 per cent is removed? No sirree, not at all.
What are we going to get? The minister said; "We are going to give you a new version". This is the 1990 version of the Beryl Plumptre committee. Do you remember that committee which the Trudeau Liberal government set up to monitor prices during the wage and price control period?
We know that that watch-dog did not bite. That watch-dog could only whimper. Yet this government is going to set up a watch-dog that will have no power to bite. It will only be able to whimper at the removal of the manufacturers' sales tax.
Finally, the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, in June, 1988, tabled a unanimous report with 33 recommendations on misleading advertising, all designed to protect consumers as they forage for food, services and goods in the marketplace. Not one of these recommendations has been put into effect-not one, and there are 33 of them which are absolutely unanimous.
The minister said the theme of his week is: "Team up for a stronger marketplace, consumers, business and government". I suggest that the theme should be: "Team up to get rid of the Mulroney government, consumers, small businesses and trade unions," providing we have any left by 1993.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Charles Deblois: for leave to introduce Bill C-296, an Act to change the name of the electoral district of Montmorency- Orleans.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall the hon. member have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Charles Deblois: Madam Speaker, today I would like to introduce a Private Members' Bill aimed at changing the name of the electoral district of Montmorency-Orleans so that it more adequately reflects the riding's demographic profile and geography.
If my bill is passed, the riding will be known as Beauport-Montmorency-Orleans.
I may point out that nearly 70 per cent of the residents of my riding live in Beauport, the fourteenth largest town in Quebec. In a recent survey of my constituents, a substantial majority replied they agreed with the new designation.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: When shall the bill be read the second time? At the next sitting of the House?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


PETITIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, it is an honour and, indeed, a privilege to present petitions pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a number of residents of the constituency of Kamloops.
April 23, 1990

The petitioners point out a whole set of reasons why they oppose the government's goods and services tax that is now before the Senate. They suggest that the Parliament of Canada should do whatever it can to encourage the government to drop this very oppressive tax, go back to the drawing-board and introduce a tax reform that is fair and just, as opposed to this very cruel goods and services tax.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, on another issue I have petitions from people who are calling upon the government to take action against the situation of so many children in Canada who live in poverty. They are asking the government to support motion M-254, which calls upon the government to negotiate with the provinces the provision of a comprehensive bill of rights for children. However, the government voted against proceeding with that initiative.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure to present to the House of Commons a petition from a number of my constituents in connection with the unjust and improper imprisonment of Yi-Shih Leo, who is a Canadian citizen, by the government of Taiwan.
Mr. Leo has been in jail for speaking about democratic rights in Taiwan. His only offence is to have exercised freedom of speech, which we are told exists in Taiwan, but which apparently exists in such a fashion so that when it is exercised it puts one in jail. On behalf of my constituents, I present this petition.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I have a petition signed by numerous residents of Kingston and the Islands who are protesting the government's goods and services tax in so far as the tax will apply to books, magazines and newspapers. These items are currently untaxed.
Under the proposed goods and services tax that is now before the other place, the government proposes to tax these items as though they were some common commodity when in fact, as Your Honour will know, they are the printed word and normally have been exempt from
Routine Proceedings
government taxation, not just in Canada but in other lands.
I am sure that these petitioners who call upon Parliament to reject the tax in so far as it applies to such publications either in the statutes or the regulations would be appalled to know that their rights now depend on the other place and not on this House. Nevertheless, they call on this House, if it should get an opportunity, to express its displeasure at the government's actions in respect of this unfair tax.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to rise under Standing Order 36 to present to this House a petition signed by 335 Canadians.
These Canadians are essentially low-income earners who are very concerned about the effect that the GST will have on them. Essentially, they are in the $20,000 a year income bracket. They will be spending between 93 per cent and 95 per cent of their money on consumption, whereas those in higher income brackets will be spending about 50 per cent.
The petitioners feel that it is blatantly unfair for them to be burdened with the goods and services tax. They are also concerned about other aspects as well. However, they are concerned mostly with the fact that the burden will be on their shoulders. Despite what some hon. members on the other side of the House who are sitting here today have said, they will not be better off, and they are pretty sure of that.
It is my honour to present this petition to you, Madam Speaker, for your consideration.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons and the other House to reject this goods and services tax.


Mrs. Diane Marleau (Sudbury):: Madam Speaker, I am happy today to be presenting another petition against the goods and the services tax. This petition was sent to me in February of this year. However, this is the first chance I have had to present it.
The petitioners are totally opposed to the goods and services tax. They are especially worried about the tax as it relates to a levy on skating expenses, including instructor fees, facility rentals, equipment purchases and other related skating expenses.
They are also concerned that the proposed tax will place a significant financial burden on the families of young athletes, thereby deterring them from entering

April 23, 1990

Routine Proceedings
and continuing in this sport. They point out that this sport significantly contributes to the physical and mental health of our youth.
They ask that this government not impose this goods and services tax, especially on any of the services related to skating.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, I am happy to present to the House pursuant to Standing Order 36 a petition on behalf of hundreds of residents in my riding and around Toronto who have relatives and friends who live in Atlantic Canada.
They are asking the government to please hurry in its design to set a clear agenda to correct the current problems in Atlantic Canada so that the people there can begin developing a game plan in order to ensure that future prosperity will exist in Atlantic Canada. We are concerned about this happening in every other part of Canada as well.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Madam Speaker, I rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition. This is the first occasion we have had in quite some time to present petitions. I do so on behalf of many citizens from the Toronto area who implore the government to intercede on behalf of Mr. Yi-Shih Leo who is being detained by the government of Taiwan.
The petition calls on the Canadian government to take immediate and effective measures to secure Mr. Leo's release, including the issuing of public statements, instructing the Canadian Embassy in Japan or the High Commission office in Hong Kong to intercede, to appoint a lawyer to handle the case, and to request Canada's allies to assist in the case itself.


WOMEN'S PROGRAMS
[Stage Direction]
They call upon Parliament, and I support them in this call, to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that the funding for the operation of women's centres, such as the ones in Port aux Basques, Stephenville and the others across the country, so that these centres can continue to provide the services and support to women and families who are so much in need of that type of service.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 246, 256 and 266.


Mr. Boudria: During the week of February 26, 1990, did employees of the Department of Employment and Immigration attend a conference in Montebello, Quebec and, if so (a) what number (b) at what cost (c) who attended the conference (d) what was the purpose of the meeting (e) who authorized the expenditure (f) who chose the location (g) were any government-owned facilities available in the National Capital Region where the meeting could have been held?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Yes.
(a)	32
(b)	$10,870
(c)	see attached appendix 1
(d)	see attached appendix 2
(e)	Mr. Yves Lachapelle, Acting Director, Outaouais Network
(f)	Mr. Jacques Cecyre, Director, Outaouais Network
(g)	no


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise to present a petition in accordance with the Standing Orders. It is from 31 people from the communities of Port aux Basques, Rose Blanche, Doyles and St. Andrew's.
The petitioners, in making their prayer, point out that the cuts in women's funding will undermine a very well-established program to provide supportive services to women and families in crisis situations, which are often life threatening and violent.
c) Jacques Cecyre Yves Lachapelle Cecile Landry
Pierre Simard
Jean-Yves Parent
Appendix 1
Director, Outaouais Network
Chief, Programs and Services Network
Senior General Personnel Officer-Network
Technical Advisor, Employment Operation Network
Technical Advisor, Insurance Operation Network


April 23, 1990

Pierre Letourneau	Chief, Administration, Planning and Analysis Network
Marcel Gonthier	Co-ordinator, Labour Force Development Strategy
	Network
Gerard Belanger	Supervisor, Employment Development Network
Donat Gollain	Director, Canada Employment Centre (CEC) Maniwaki
Lise Carle	Supervisor, Employment, Maniwaki
Jocelyn Mantha	Supervisor, Insurance, Maniwaki
Chantal Mantha	Chief, Administrative Services, Maniwaki
Maurice Matte	Director, CEC Gatineau
Cfiline Magnan	Supervisor, Employment, Gatineau
Yves Bonneau	Chief, Administrative Services, Gatineau
Francine Bilodeau	Supervisor, Reception and Information, Gatineau
Richard Poirier	Director, CEC Buckingham
Claudette Levis	Supervisor, Employment, Buckingham
Louise Lafrance	Supervisor, Insurance, Buckingham
Francine Leguerrier	Chief, Administrative Services, Buckingham
Raymond Bourassa	Director, CEC Hull
Nicole Desjardins	Assistant Director, CEC Hull
Christiane Boulanger	Supervisor, Employment, Hull
Paul Mongeon	Chief, Administrative Services, Hull
Mathilde Araujo	Supervisor, Insurance, Hull
Marthe Savoie	Supervisor, Employment, Hull
Luc Lafleche	Supervisor, Investigation and Control, Hull
Michel Laporte	Director, CEC Campbell's Bay
Estelle Bernier	Supervisor, Information Centre, Hull
Serge Turbide	Director, CEC Montreal
Yves Leroux	Supervisor, Valleyfield
Denis Simard	Supervisor, Insurance, Hull
Appendix 2
(d) In view of the new Labour Force Development Strategy, a national forum was held for managers in the Quebec Region in October 1989. Following the forum, the Quebec Region decided to organize a similar type of
Routine Proceedings
forum, in residence, for all supervisors in the Quebec Region. The objectives of this forum were as follows:
-To enable each supervisor to understand the foundation and evolution of the strategy.
-To assure an adequate comprehension of the concepts and principles of this Strategy and the mandate of Employment and Immigration Canada.
-To examine the approach and the methods to be used through exchanges and discussions on the means available, taking into consideration each of CEC's own characteristics.
-To allow supervisors to familiarize themselves with the results of the pilot projects.
-To outline the overall network, a plan and timetable for its execution.


Miss Grey (Beaver River): Has the government provided any contributions or grants through the Department of the Environment to organizations which have the goals or objectives of promoting or defending animal rights or animal welfare, or which are responsible for animal protection services and, if so, in each case, what is (a) the name of the organization (b) the (i) amount (ii) purpose (iii) duration of the contribution or grant?


Lucien Bouchard: Environment Canada has not provided grants or contributions to organizations which have goals or objectives of promoting or defending animal rights or animal welfare or responsibility for animal protection services.


Ms. Hunter: Did the government support the United States invasion of Panama and, if so, did it seek legal opinion before taking this step and, if so (a) who provided the advice (b) at what stage was it sought (c) did it include arguments (i) in favour of (ii) against the invasion and, if so, what were they?


Charles Joseph Clark: The Government of Canada, on December 20, 1989, expressed support for the USA action in Panama since: (a) all reasonable and extraordinary diplomatic efforts to negotiate a solution to the crisis in Panama had failed, and (b) the killing of an off-duty U.S. military officer and threats to the families

April 23, 1990
Government Orders
of other U.S. servicemen had demonstrated that the lives of American citizens, in Panama by right of treaty, were in jeopardy. On December 16, 1989, the Panamanian National Assembly declared the country to be in a "state of war" with the United States. In the circumstances, the United States' Government invoked Article 51 of the United Nations' Charter, which permits states to use force in self defence. The Government of Canada expressed regret that the situation had deteriorated to the extent that force was required. The Government of Canada acknowledged that the use of force presented a dangerous precedent, but recognized that the situation in Panama was unique.
The question of whether the Government of Canada sought a legal opinion before expressing support for the United States' military intervention in Panama, and related questions concerning the nature of any such opinion constitute a request to render public the confidential advice provided by the Government to the Prime Minister. The confidentiality of this information is protected under the Access to Information Act.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The questions as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-69, an act to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have two quick points of order to raise.
Earlier in the day the government House leader asked whether there was unanimous consent to extend the
sitting by, perhaps, an extra hour considering that we had taken up some time with Routine Proceedings. At that time I might have been a dissenting voice. I think what I said may have been misrepresented.
I, too, am prepared to consent to extend the hour of sitting tonight.


Mr. Speaker:: I asked the House if there were any negatives and the hon. member for Kamloops said: "Yes". It led to some confusion. However, I am glad that the hon. member has now clarified it.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: No, we are not agreeing to that.


Mr. Speaker:: Oh, he has clarified his own position.
We have consent on the government side and we have the consent of the NDP. Do we have the consent of the Official Opposition?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not prepared to give that consent right now. I wish to consult with my colleagues briefly and report back to the government House Leader or the deputy government House Leader. But, at the present time, I am not willing to provide that consent without any form of prior discussions having taken place.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the consultations.
I have another point of order. We are about to resume debate on Bill C-69. Now that the government House leader is here, I would like to bring to his attention Standing Order 113(1) which reads:
Without anticipating the decision of the House, within five sitting days after the commencement of debate on second reading of a bill which is to be referred to a legislative committee, the Striking Committee shall meet to prepare, and shall report not later than the following Thursday, a list of members of such a legislative committee-
Mr. Speaker, as you well know 11 sitting days have elapsed since the commencement of debate on Bill C-69. That is more than twice the maximum time allowed under this Standing Order. The question to the government House Leader is this. Why has appropriate action not been taken since the debate on Bill C-69 commenced some days ago?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, let me say, first, in terms of the question of extending the hours, the offer still stands.
April 23, 1990

In terms of the second question, I will have to look into it. Presumably it had something to do with the break and other preoccupations, but I will look into the matter and get back to the hon. member.
This is of course a finance bill. As has been the habit concerning all bills coming out of budgets and so on, we have been sending them to the Standing Committee on Finance which, of course, would be the most expeditious way to proceed.
If there is unanimous consent of the House at this point, we can deal with the matter and have the bill referred to the Standing Committee on Finance which is set up and experienced. The appropriate members from each party are members of it. It can be dealt with in a most expeditious fashion by that committee.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, first, that is not a good excuse for the government not doing what it was required to do under the Standing Orders. I would encourage the government House leader to be a bit more attentive to what is expected of the government in terms of dealing with legislation. If the government wants to expedite legislation, the least it can do is follow the Standing Orders and do what is required.
The request which has come is this: Will we be prepared to send this bill to the Standing Committee on Finance? Perhaps I will use this occasion to make the following point, since I notice that my friend, the chairman of that committee, is present.
Members of the New Democratic Party argued long and hard that we felt that what had transpired in the Standing Committee on Finance was unacceptable. It was not the way in which a committee should be conducted. I think I said at that time that we would not be inclined to refer legislation that was destined by our Standing Orders to a legislative committee to go to the standing committee.
That situation still stands. I understand that nothing has changed. Our concern in terms of the implications of those decisions remain and, consequently-


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to respond to the hon. member, and I will hear the hon. House leader in a moment.
What he says may very well be, but it is really not a matter to raise here in front of the Speaker. I cannot become involved in that. I know the hon. House leader
Speaker's Ruling
of the New Democratic Party would want to conduct his discussions on that subject with the hon. House leader and others.
I will now hear the hon. House Leader.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that Standing Order 113, which talks about setting up a legislative committee, states as well: "-the Striking Committee shall meet-". I have not seen a letter from the New Democratic members of the Striking Committee asking that this committee meet. If it is in my files, I will get to it and make sure that the chairman is aware of it so that this committee can, in fact, meet.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I misunderstood that it was up to the New Democratic Party to provide all of the leadership in terms of moving legislation through the House of Commons. I made the error of expecting the government to take some initiative in terms of providing leadership. I will not make that mistake again.


Mr. Speaker:: Whether there is consent or not, I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by 16 minutes.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: On March 27, 1990, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands rose on a point of order to question the procedural acceptability of attaching a royal recommendation to the government's expenditures restraint bill, Bill C-69. The hon. member delivered a well researched argument, citing several precedents and making references to learned parliamentary authorities.
The hon. members for Kamloops and Gloucester, as well as the Minister of State for Finance, also made contributions on this issue.
That exchange assisted the Chairman in considering this complex issue which relates to a very fundamental element of our parliamentary system of government- the financial initiative of the Crown.
To many of our viewing audience, and indeed many of the hon. members of the House, the subject matter of the financial initiative of the Crown sounds like an extremely Byzantine and hopelessly complicated matter. However, if you will bear with me for a few moments, the Chairman will attempt to set out the issue in

April 23, 1990
Speaker's Ruling
straightforward terms because it does have a serious impact on how the House conducts its business.
I wish to begin this explanation by quoting from page 247 of the Annotated Standing Orders which reads:
In our system of parliamentary government, the Sovereign, as represented by the Governor General, and acting on the advice of His or Her responsible ministers,-
-that is, the Cabinet-
-is charged with the management of all revenues of the State and the payment of all public expenditures. The appropriation -
-that is, the spending-
-of money for these payments has to be first recommended by the Governor General to the House (known as a Royal Recommendation) and then approved by Parliament.
In other words, before the House can introduce any bill which would result in an expense to the Treasury, it must obtain a statement from the Government General indicating that he or she recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue as set out in the bill. This is what is known as the royal recommendation.

This requirement for a royal recommendation is enshrined in our constitution. As the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands explained, section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867 absolutely requires that a royal message of recommendation be obtained for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue or any tax prior to the adoption of a bill.

Prior to the significant changes in our Standing Orders relating to financial procedures, which occurred in 1968, a bill such as Bill C-69 would have been preceded by a motion adopted in the Committee of the Whole.
Under this procedure, it was fairly easy to ascertain whether any amendment proposed to the bill was in order or not because it had to comply with the detailed motion adopted in Committee of the Whole. That is a committee of the whole House with all members who are interested in that particular matter in attendance. It is not a committee meeting outside the Chamber.
However, the major complaint about this procedure was that it was too lengthy. It involved a debate to go into Committee of the Whole, another debate in committee on the motion, called the resolution stage, and further debates on the various stages of the bill.
In December, 1968, this procedure was changed. The resolution stage in Committee of the Whole was eliminated, as was the Committee of Supply and the Committee of Ways and Means. The royal recommendation was given to the House thereafter simply as a printed notice, pursuant to Standing Order 79(2), which reads as follows:
The message and recommendation of the Governor General in relation to any bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue or of any tax or impost shall be printed on the Notice Paper and in the Votes and Proceedings when any such measure is to be introduced and the text of such recommendation shall be printed with or annexed to every such bill.

For several years following the changes, the form of the royal recommendation remained a detailed expression of the spending authority given by the Crown. There were occasions when hon. members complained about the scope and adequacy of the royal recommendation, or that it was poorly drafted.
This prompted Speaker Lamoureux to make the following comment on November 2, 1970 at page 782 of Hansard:
I have very often felt it should not be necessary that our recommendations should attempt to go into all details of the bill because we are bound to get into difficulties. We want to know whether His Excellency thinks this is a bill with which we can proceed. If he tells us that in three words, we should take his word for it.

By 1976, the wording of the royal recommendation had changed. Bills introduced in the House from this point on bore a brief and abbreviated recommendation such as the following: "His or Her Excellency, the Governor General, recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances in the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled-'' and then the name of the particular bill would follow. Under these conditions, the bill itself must now be used to determine the amount of the charge, the objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications set by the royal recommendation.
April 23, 1990

At first glance, one might think one could easily discern whether any new charge is placed on the Treasury. If a rate is increased, then it would appear to be obvious that an additional charge is placed on the Treasury and a royal recommendation must be obtained.
According to citation 540 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, however, the amount of the charge is not the only consideration. It states:
The guiding principle in determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of the charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. In relation to the standard thereby fixed, an amendment infringes the financial initiative of the Crown not only if it increases the amount but also if it extends the objects and purposes, or relaxes the conditions and qualifications expressed in the communication by which the Crown has demanded or recommended a charge.
As Beauchesne explains, there are instances where the objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications may be affected in such a manner as to involve financial implications. For instance, if a program is extended to cover an additional period of time or if the parameters of a program are broadened to cover more applicants, then a royal recommendation is necessary.

With this background having been explained, I would like to return now to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. In his presentation the hon. member suggests that the government expenditures restraint bill reduces government spending. It does not involve any new charge on the Treasury and, therefore, requires no royal recommendation. Furthermore, he suggested these recommendations are included in bills "in an attempt by the government to stifle amendment by members of the opposition, amendments which members-are entitled to put".

In reply, the Hon. Minister of State for Finance explained that the royal recommendation was obtained for this bill on the advice of the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel because some provisions in
Speaker's Ruling
the bill widened existing conditions. He referred in particular to clause 2.
The Government Expenditures Restraint Bill is an extremely complex piece of legislation. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands himself described the bill as containing "all kinds of formulae that I do not understand". The Chair has a great deal of sympathy for all hon. members on both sides of the House who attempt to glean some understanding from bills of this kind.

A review of clause 2 shows a formula for calculating limits on the 1991 contributions under the Canada Assistance Plan. Clause 5 provides for an escalator formula in the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act.
There is no doubt in the Chairman's mind that the proposals in Bill C-69, which is an amending bill, will change the conditions and qualifications that were attached to the original legislation recommended by the Governor General. The result from the calculation of any of the formulae may or may not cost the Treasury less money but the manner and the elements used to arrive at such results are certainly new.
The Chairman would therefore conclude that a royal recommendation was appropriate.
As for the hon. member's concern that the presence of a royal recommendation might restrict the opportunities for amendment, it is my view that this should not preclude any hon. members from moving amendments to clauses of the bill at committee and report stages subject to our normal rules and practices. In committee, hon. members can propose amendments to any clauses. If any amendment is thought to be irregular, there is normally opportunity for procedural debate, followed by a decision of the chairman.
Furthermore, report stage provides another opportunity to put forward amendments. As hon. members know, there are normally consultations on the selection of amendments as well as on the groupings for debate and division. Any proposed amendment will, however, be subject to our practice that it cannot affect the objects, purposes, conditions or qualifications of the financial initiative.

April 23, 1990
Speaker's Ruling
I wish to thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for raising this issue and providing the Chairman with an opportunity to clarify our practice with regard to the royal recommendation.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Before resuming debate, I wish to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex-Agriculture; the hon. member for South West Nova-Fisheries; the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby-Women's Centres.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, before the debate on Bill C-69 adjourned on March 27,1 was in the process of discussing the impact of the Expenditures Restraint Act. I suggest that after the minister's tabling today we should perhaps call it the "Consumers' Restraint Act".
When I was discussing Bill C-69 I discussed the fact that social assistance services cannot now meet the demands of low income Canadians and their families. We have witnessed a rise in the number of Canadian families forced to go to food banks. Forty per cent of all food bank users are children. Not your children, not my children, but Canadian children are forced regularly to the food banks for their very subsistence.
This government has done nothing to help low-income Canadians and has, in fact, abandoned its responsibility to ensure that social assistance programs are available to all of those in need.
When I last spoke, I spoke about the fact that welfare rates are not adequate in my home province of British Columbia. I also mentioned that, in my view, this is because the British Columbia government is strangling the welfare system and leaving a province that should have a normal economy in the enviable position of being a have province.
Indeed, just this week, the province brought down a budget which purported to be a balanced budget but, in fact, was another smoke and mirrors budgets which is so often the case in British Columbia.
On March 27 I read into the record statistics from a 1989 report from the Social Planning and Research Council of British Columbia. Those statistics outlined that the shortfall for welfare recipients in British Columbia ranges from 83 per cent for a single male person to 44 per cent for a single mother with one child. One example is that a single mother with two teenaged children would find a shortfall of 66 per cent. She receives $986 but needs $1,633. That is a hypothetical example, but you could couple that with the housing crisis, not just in British Columbia but across the country.
Life for a social service recipient in any province in this country is extremely difficult. The Canada Assistance Plan represents the principle that regardless of where one lives in Canada, whether it is on Vancouver Island, the lower mainland, the prairie provinces, eastern Canada or northern Canada, one should be eligible to receive support payments that will meet the basic needs. In fact, the proposal under Bill C-69, the capping of the Canada Assistance Program in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, denies that basic philosophy and sends us down a different path for the future with regard to support for Canadians.
The ceiling on CAP expenditures is a transfer of responsibility from the federal to the provincial government. That will reduce the federal government's ability to ensure equal treatment in the delivery of social services. A cap on the Canada Assistance Plan means fewer and reduced services in those provinces in which the cap is applied.
A cap on the Canada Assistance Plan means less flexibility for the provinces in the delivery of service as no new moneys will be available. This measure could cut short Ontario's plan, for example, to redesign its social services. There will be fewer services at a time when cuts in the unemployment insurance program will force more people on to the welfare rolls. Less money will mean lower relative welfare rates and a greater reliance on food banks and other charitable sources.
Let us not forget the clawback on family allowance and old age pensions that has already been put forward by this government in Bill C-28.
This is the same kind of pulling away from a national commitment, in this case to seniors and again to mothers and children. Those who will bear the brunt of these measures are those who are already being squeezed by the provincial governments, particularly in Ontario by cuts to food banks, in Alberta by the Alberta budget of
April 23, 1990

1990 and in British Columbia by the low welfare rates, the health care expenditure cut-backs and rising tuition fees.
If we take a look at the throne speech and me 1990-91 budget that has just come down in British Columbia, again we will see further squeezing on those who were dependent upon the government. Is this the kind of federal-provincial co-operation that we can continue to expect from this government, or is there a genuine and serious commitment to co-operation that will ensure that which every Canadian has the right to expect, an equitable and basic income?
I will only speak briefly to the Canadian Exploration Incentive Program Act, which is also amended in Bill C-69, because I think there are members from Alberta who will be speaking at great length on this matter. The value of the Canadian Exploration Incentive Program Act to Alberta is approximately $47.3 million. Of the total cut, about 30 per cent is in the oil and gas industry, 90 per cent of which would be accounted for in Alberta.
Then there is OSLO, Madam Speaker. The same government that is willing to give an over $1 billion, absolutely free, no strings attached grant to Hibernia has decided to axe OSLO. That is another $650 million right out of the pockets of Albertans.
I would now like to address clause 5 of this bill, the cap on the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act. This is the third attack by this government on the EPF. In 1986 the EPF formula was adjusted downward by 2 per cent, further eroding the funding base for the provinces in the face of inflation. In 1989, the formula was again adjusted downward by a further 1 per cent. It must be noted that these cuts affect all provinces. Now we see the three provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario facing a further limit on transfers of 5 per cent. This amounts to a substantial reduction in transfers in real terms to those provinces.
The EPF is the largest social program financed by the federal government. The money is transferred to the provinces to pay for hospital insurance, medicare and post-secondary education. This bill effectively freezes transfers to the three provinces given an inflation rate of 5 per cent. The cumulative effect of the past cuts and the proposed freeze are phenomenal. For Alberta it means a loss of $999.4 million. For Ontario it means a loss of $3.9 billion, and for British Columiba it means a loss of $1.3 billion over the next five years. When federal money is cut the provinces have only two choices- raise taxes or cut services. Well, the provincial government of British
Government Orders
Columbia has just announced in its budget that it will not be increasing taxes, so the alternative is to cut services.
We will see increasing pressure to create a two-tiered health care system such as the recent proposal that came out in Alberta where basic health care is insured but "extras" such as drug plans, physiotherapy and chiropractic care are not.
In education, where the percentage of federal funding is even higher, 65 per cent of provincial expenditure on higher education is provided by federal money. These cuts pose a direct threat to both the quality of and accessibility to universities and colleges. At a time when our whole society is moving ahead and advancing dramatically in this new age of technology, this new age of information, our children are having a harder and harder time going to university because of higher tuition rates. The universities are having a harder and harder time keeping up to the changing technology, the changing information and the increasing numbers of students who are coming to their doors.
These cuts must be considered in light of the government's other attacks on regional subsidies such as VIA, the fisheries, agriculture and unemployment insurance, and also in light of the continental restructuring taking place since free trade. The smaller the federal presence in these programs, the greater the pressure to privatize these services. This must be recognized as a deliberate side effect of cuts to provincial transfers.
The National Federation of Nurses Union have said:
It is our belief that Canada's health care system is under siege. Every time we look around someone else is taking a swipe at health care in this country.
The Canadian Association of University Teachers comment:
Higher education is in fact an investment as much as an expenditure. The finance minister talked in his budget about the effects on future generations. The effect of failing to compete with the Americans, the Japanese and many European countries in educational investment will be to ensure a future for our youth as hamburger flippers rather than as meaningful participants in the technological era that is upon us.

April 23, 1990
Government Orders
That was a response to the 1989 Budget by Professor Peter King. One would wonder how many hamburger flippers Canada can afford to turn out.
The theme of Bill C-69 and of the other legislation that has been introduced by this government in the area of social services, is one of cruelty and hypocrisy. There is Liberal hypocrisy as well because under 6 and 5 in 1977 the requirement that health and post secondary funding had to be spent on health and post secondary education was abandoned.
In British Columbia, in particular, the popular belief and oft-cited allegation is that the money is spent not on services and education but in fact on pavement.
When the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley asked the Secretary of State if they had studied this problem and to tell us that this was not the case, the reply was: "You will have to trust us". The member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley has a private member's bill calling for a return to the pre-1977 era when we had accountability for the expenditure of these funds. We would hope that members opposite, on the government side of the House, and the Liberals, would support this initiative.
Women will be hurt by this freeze. Yet again women are caught in the squeeze and the freeze when it comes to funding. It will mean a loss of jobs for women who are the majority of health care workers.
When looking at the whole picture of how this government handles money there are a couple of figures that I have trouble getting out of my mind. One is $1,721,170. That is the amount of the smallest of three government grants given to Noranda in 1988. Noranda is the giant natural resources holding company. In 1988, it made $603 million in profits. It also deferred $233 million in taxes that it will probably never pay, and it does not even have to pay interest on those deferred taxes. The $1,721,170 is more than the $1.6 million cut from 80 women's centres across Canada. It is as much as many programs in Canada need to survive. That $1,700 million would go a long way in any province where welfare cuts are happening because of the capping of the federal program.
The Prime Minister stated during the 1988 election campaign that the free trade agreement fully protects
and preserves all of our existing social programs and places no restrictions whatsoever on our ability to improve and expand upon them.
We have seen, over the mandate of this Parliament, one after another of our social programs attacked and cut back. I am waiting, as I am sure every member on this side of the House is waiting, to see one improvement and one expansion of social programs.
In November of 1988, the Prime Minister said: "Why would I do anything other than ensure that my mother and all the mothers of this country get the programs to which they are entitled and richly deserve? The simple unvarnished truth is that medicare, pensions and social programs are not at risk". That from the mouth of the Prime Minister in 1988.
Well my mother is not impressed. Many mothers in Canada are not impressed, particularly women who are elderly and mothers of young children. Yet, we have seen clawbacks to the old age pension and child allowance. We have seen a cap on the Canada Assistance Program as represented in this bill. We have also seen the UI cuts.


John Horton McDermid: Your mother is making $80,000 a year then.


Joy Langan: My mother is not making $80,000 a year. My mother is a pensioner.


John Horton McDermid: Well then she's not caught in the clawback.


Joy Langan: I have obviously touched a nerve on the government side of the House and have awakened a bunch of members who were busily mumbling in their beards up until now. I am telling you that there is not a mother in this country, possibly with the exception of the Prime Minister's mother, who is impressed by the agenda of this government.
You cannot even get a handle on it. You cannot go out and say, "this is the government's agenda". It is so insidious.
Bill C-69 is so bad that I would like to move the following amendment:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the
word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-69, an act to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.
April 23, 1990


NOTICE OF ALLOCATION OF TIME FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE SECOND READING STAGE OF BILL C-69
Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, I have two notices to give to you and to the Eiouse.
I stress that it was not possible to reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Orders 78(1) and 78(2) regarding allocation of time for second reading of Bill C-69, the Government Expenditures Restraint Act.
Pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), I give notice of my intention to move a motion at the next sitting of the Eiouse for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days, or one day, for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the second reading stage of the above-mentioned bill.


NOTICE OF MOTION PURSUANT TO S. O. 57
Marcel Danis: Also, Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 57,1 give notice that at the next sitting of the House, immediately before the Order of the Day for resuming the debate on the motion by the Minister of Finance for second reading and referral to a legislative committee of Bill C-69, the Government Expenditures Restraint Act, and any amendments thereon, I shall move a motion that the debate not be further adjourned.
Of course, Madam Speaker, if agreement is reached with the opposition parties, we will review the procedure.


MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wilson (Etobicoke Centre) that Bill C-69, an act to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Diane Marleau: Madam Speaker, I am here to speak today to Bill C-69, a bill implementing four measures for budget restrictions announced in the February, 1990, Budget. I am going to repeat them so
Government Orders
that we can be very clear on exactly what we are debating here today.
The first one freezes federal transfer payments to the provinces under Established Programs Financing. It freezes transfer payments for post-secondary education and health care.
The second one limits the increase of federal transfer payments to Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta under the Canada Assistance Plan, which affects social programs.
The third one eliminates the Canada Exploration Incentive Program, which affects mining, gas and oil industries.
The fourth one freezes public utilities income tax transfers over the next two years.
At first glance this might seem to be innocuous language and taxpayers might say that since they are not getting an increase in taxes it may not be so bad. But the people of Canada are very well informed and they are very much aware that a cutback in transfers will probably translate into increased taxes.
I was reading the March 1990 issue of Policy Options. In an article in that publication Grattan Gray says:
The government camouflages regressive changes to trick
Canadians into believing that tax increases are tax cuts and that
benefit cuts are increases.
This is another example of this kind of subterfuge. Not only is the government about to impose the GST, the greatest tax grab and most regressive tax in Canadian history, through this budget and with this bill it will impose cuts of over $7.5 billion to the provinces over the next five years. Never before have so many been taken for so much and been left with so little.
I will start with the Established Programs Financing. This program provides equal per capita financial assistance to all provinces to assist in the funding of health care and education.
In 1982, the Minister of Finance was opposed to cuts in the Established Programs Financing. This is 1990 and, obviously, he has changed his tune. He stated that cuts to EPF:
- could have disastrous effects on the universities and on the colleges, on the hospital funding and on the operation of the hospitals. Let us not make hospitals, universities and colleges a battleground between the federal government and the provincial governments. Let us solve those problems not on the backs of the hospitals and universities; let us solve those problems outside of that arena.

April 23, 1990
Government Orders
This was reported in Hansard at page 15776 on March 24, 1982.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: I wonder why he changed his mind.


Diane Marleau: I wonder why he changed his mind. When faced with that kind of tactic, the provinces will have very little choice but to either cut back their funding of these institutions and therefore post-secondary education students will have to pay higher fees.
In hospitals, the odds are that the increased costs will be passed on either in cuts to services or in increased taxes at the provincial level, or again, in increased taxes at the municipal level when the province has to make some very serious choices as to where they will find the funds to continue providing the level of service which is essential to our people, which Canadians expect, and which they deserve.
Let me also add that this is the third time that the federal government has cut the Established Programs Financing in the last few years. The total loss to Ontario from these cuts will amount to over $11 billion. I am very well aware, and so are the taxpayers in Ontario, that a taxpayer is a taxpayer is a taxpayer. If one does not pay the bill at this level, the province has to foot the bill, and there is only one taxpayer at the bottom of the heap. If that taxpayer's municipal taxes are forced to increase or if his or her provincial taxes increase, whichever way you want to look at it, it is that same middle-income average person who will have to pay the price.
Many of these people are in serious difficulties now, especially in some of the regions in this country where people live on fixed incomes, have retired and own their own homes and are trying to maintain them. They are looking at increased municipal taxes. They are very worried about the increase in natural gas and heating and hydro that the GST will inflict upon them. They are very worried, and with good reason because they do not know where they are going. They wonder why is the government doing this to them. Is there no way of stopping this?
I ask, please reconsider some of these measures. Let us tackle the problem of the debt together, but let us not pass it on to those who can least afford it. It is important that we consider all people and that we treat those who cannot pay with very much consideration, and those who can pay, that we make them pay properly.
The Canada Assistance Plan is the basis for social assistance in Canada. Under the plan, the federal government matches provincial expenditures for social assistance programs. This does not only include what we generally refer to as welfare, but also things like services and living services for the disabled, foster homes for abused children, shelters for abused wives and child care for low-income families. These are all of the things that are going to be curtailed or at least held back in the three provinces affected.
The three provinces affected by this contain about 49 per cent of Canada's poor and they are no less poor because they live in Ontario, Alberta or British Columbia. It does not change the fact that they are poor.
I quote from a press release from the Canadian Council on Social Development: "Poor children will suffer when the federal contribution to the Canada Assistance Plan is capped for two years for Alberta, B.C. and Ontario. The plan provides direct payments to poor people with no other income, 40 per cent of whom are children and half of whom live in the three provinces affected".
Through this measure the government claims that it will save $151 million over two years, but at what expense? Maybe the government will save it, but the next level will have to pick up the bill, because we are a caring society and we will not allow these people to go without at least the very basics that they are receiving now, which I will admit is not a very large amount.
These cuts are very unfair in terms of the provinces concerned. They are the rich provinces, I will agree to that. But they are also the three provinces which do not receive equalization payments. They are being singled out by this set of cuts. The budget makes no allowances for increases in the number of people receiving social assistance, even though the government's own projections predict an increase in unemployment next year.
April 23, 1990

Capping the Canada Assistance Plan for the next two years will cause welfare costs to increase. Combined with the changes to unemployment insurance, this will put an additional burden on municipal property taxpayers.
Other areas funded by the Canada Assistance Plan affecting provinces and municipalities are day care and other social programs that municipal governments have been handed. We had a case in point in Sudbury just recently. There was a proposition that a number of subsidized day care spaces be funded by the municipal government. The municipal government felt that it just could not find the additional cash to do this. It is already very worried about its own tax base. I feel very confident that it will find the moneys for these additional spaces over the next six months or so and I encourage them to do it. However, it bothers me that there is a cap put on that funding so that it will affect even further any additional spaces that might be considered.
We must remember the number of children who are in need of adequate child care because they are being raised by single parents, single mothers and fathers, who must go out and earn a living if they are to not remain on the welfare rolls. One thing leads to the other, if parents do not have adequate day care and subsidized day care, how can they go out and find any kind of employment that will offset the kinds of costs that are associated with having a family? We must help them so that we do not have generations of poor children growing up in a very rich land.
I am going to spend a little more time speaking on the cancellation of CEIP. CEIP is the Canada Exploration Incentive Program. It affects gas and oil as well as mining, but I will be referring in my comments mostly to the mining sector because that is the one with which I am the most familiar.
The Canada Exploration Incentive Program was announced in May, 1988. The program was designed to assist the junior mining and oil and gas sectors in raising equity capital to enable the exploration of oil, gas and mineral reserves in Canada. CEIP provided cash incentive contributions to qualified corporations based on 30 per cent of eligible exploration expenses incurred pursuant to a flow-through share agreement. The 30 per cent incentive rate was to be fixed until December 31, 1990. It was stated that after that date the rate may
Government Orders
change, however, a minimum of six months' notice would be given prior to any change.
That is what we were given to believe in December, 1989. Program administration had been designed to ensure prompt payment of incentives, and application processing, inspection and auditing procedures were intended to be as straightforward and efficient as possible.
In the mining sector this was put in to take the place of another program which had been cut back, another program which had really helped greatly in the mining sector. I refer to the Mineral Exploration Depreciation Allowance which had been in place since 1983.
We all recall in the early 1980s the dire straits that the mineral industry was in, especially in northern Ontario. I refer to the Sudbury basin when the price of nickel plummeted well below $2 and there were no profits anywhere. The mines in my area were shut down for 10 months. It was a very difficult time for my area in particular and it was a very difficult time for northern Ontario and all of the mineral industries there.
In 1983 the then Liberal government introduced the Mineral Exploration Depletion Allowance to encourage the investing of moneys in the mining industry. Subsequent to 1983 there was an increase in the amount of funds that were invested in junior mining firms.
In the mining sector, when the minerals are pulled from the ground, there are no new ones. They do not grow back. The mining industry is responsible for, I believe, 25 per cent of Canada's exports. That amount of exports generates a great deal of tax dollars.
When a mine runs out of a mineral, the only way of replacing an empty mine is to find a new deposit. Therefore, it is absolutely essential that we continue to explore and find new sites so that a very viable, very good mining industry which we have developed in Canada can continue to flourish.
Therefore, in 1983 the government decided to try to encourage it because it was in dire need. In 1987, as much as $1.4 billion or $1.5 billion was being invested in exploration and development of new mines across the country. Of course, that was too good and we could not let it continue so we cut it off and we brought in another program and again we promised that we would not cut that one back and then we replaced it overnight by CEIP and now again we have been told that there would be no

April 23, 1990
Government Orders
changes in this program until December 31, 1990 and whoops, in February, 1990, it has gone. Okay, we will honour any contracts that have already been entered into, but nothing else happens.
Perhaps the government does not want to give grants to mining companies and especially to junior mining companies. The mining exploration business is a very risky one. If interest rates are very high, as they are right now, the investors would be much happier to just put their money in the bank and collect interest and forget about investing in very risky businesses.
As a result, and we see it now, I believe that in 1989 the actual amount of moneys invested in exploration and development was about $600 million. It is projected by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources that in 1991 there will be only about $430 million invested in the exploration and development of new mines. That will be spent by the major mining companies that of course always continue to try to keep their stock of mines going.
But it is in effect the junior mining companies who really take the risks, and it is especially important that there be some kind of mechanism put into place to entice the investors to place their money with these junior mining companies in order that we may find new sites and develop new mines, so that when a mine closes in one area, that there is another one somewhere, hopefully fairly close to the one that closed, that can use that expertise and that well trained labour force that is in place in the one area.
I would refer in this case to the miners from Elliot Lake. We have there a fine, well trained workforce and they are losing their jobs. There are upwards of 2,000 people in Elliot Lake who will be losing their jobs shortly, if they have not already. We must have other mines that are developed so these people can continue earning their living. They do not want to be on unemployment insurance. They do not want to be on social assistance, any more than the fishermen of Newfoundland wish to be on social assistance or on unemployment insurance.
It is absolutely essential that this government try in some way. As the Liberal party, we are pushing for an enhanced flow-through share mechanism. If it is not an up-front grant, such as CEIP was, then let us go back to some kind of a fair tax incentive, so that the public will be investing in mines, not the government but the public. When new mines are generated, become operational and their profits start to roll in, then the government will reap the benefits. The government, by being very shortsighted and saving a few dollars now, will find that, down the line, there will be nothing left in this mining industry. Where will the government be then without those tax savings?
I am very concerned about the cancellation of these programs because these programs especially affect the regions of the country.
In conclusion, in every case the government has tried either to pass the buck on to other levels of government or to make cuts in areas which are not easily viable. Every government must make tough spending decisions. Municipal governments know this better than anyone else. I want the federal government to be open and honest and make those tough decisions, but not through a sham, such as this, and not on the backs of the poor and the regions of the country.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Madam Speaker, I wish to make a comment and ask a question of the hon. member who has just given a rather insightful analysis of some of the problems of the budget.


An hon. member:: Insightful?


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: I see that some of my colleagues from southwestern Ontario also agree with me, at least I can judge that by their interventions. They were probably most impressed by the member's understanding of flowthrough shares and the need for the government to become involved in an economic strategy, an industrial strategy, and a mining strategy. I know that they will probably be more than willing to present those kinds of views within their caucus. At least, I take that, from their interventions and my mentioning that, to be a sign of good faith and an applause for the member who has been so forthright and so incisive in her understanding of the budget. I compliment them on that.
April 23, 1990

There are two points that I wanted to address to my hon. colleague and they refer to the EPF financing, especially with respect to the implications for post-secondary education, hospitalization and medical facilities available to Canadians throughout Canada.
I know that the hon. member focused on the negative implications for British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario. These are the three provinces which have been targeted by the government for cuts. I want to draw to her attention two points and perhaps she could comment. I am asking for only a very brief response, if possible.
Over the course of the last couple of days, a Noble Prize winner, a Canadian-I dare say almost a former Canadian-Mr. Polanyi, indicated that research and development in Canada is at an abysmal level. I think he indicated that he was ashamed even to refer to the kinds of programs that emanated from Canada as being thought of as participating in research and development.
Given our Constitution and the federal government's inability, constitutionally speaking, to be involved in the education of all Canadians on one level, except at the post-secondary level, and given that the federal government can use post-secondary education as a great leveller and as a great stimulus for research and development and for providing a national scope, a vision of where funds would be used in order to develop not only an erudite society, not only a well prepared society, but also to stimulate research and development that can be applied to the new technological necessities of tomorrow, and given as well that the government has chosen not to act on what is in its purview under the Constitution to do, and instead has decided to withdraw funds from the three provinces that appear to be in a position of leadership by virtue of the health of their economies, can my colleague indicate to us if she has been given an indication by the government or the Minister of Finance, if there is a government alternative that will replace the funds that the Minister of Finance will no longer put at the disposal of Canadians who want to establish a standard for all Canadians in technology, research and post-secondary education?
Is there a government alternative to cutting back those funds from those provinces? Is there, in fact, something
Government Orders
the government is proposing to give to the other seven provinces that do not share those kinds of possibilities.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member for Sudbury will be happy to know that she still has a few minutes to answer.


Diane Marleau: Madam Speaker, I must be very honest and cut all the sham. I must answer no to my colleague. There is no other plan by the government.
I am always surprised at the kind of rhetoric that the government is capable of putting forth. At a Conservative general meeting on August 25, 1989, the hon. Prime Minister stated, in a nice deep voice: "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". It is a simple case of saying one thing and doing another, as the government has consistently done over the five years that it has been in power.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, first, I want to compliment the hon. member on her address.
I have been listening to many people in my riding and other ridings across Canada in the last few months. What I am hearing from many people, especially labour, is that there is a tremendous sense of hopelessness and the morale is bad.
In order to develop a competitive mood, a sense of national productivity or global competitiveness, the first thing we must have is a happy, productive workforce. If, suddenly, in the middle of a period when morale is bad in our labour force, the government comes along and adds a further complication by giving us a complicated and unnecessary goods and services tax, the GST, is this further disincentive and pressure not going to put further stress on our health care systems and municipal services?
Would the government would be further ahead in trying to increase its revenue base and productivity if, instead of looking at the need for taxes in a technocratic way, it went back to the root of the problem and realized that no matter how much tax we were given, before we are really going get productivity-which ultimately will generate the revenue and even take pressure off our social services and health care? Should the government

April 23, 1990
Government Orders
go right back to the drawing-board and start rebuilding the morale of the country, especially on the shop floor?


Diane Marleau: Madam Speaker, I agree, absolutely and completely. It is not only on the shop floor, but everywhere across the country.
While I was home during the last ten days on the Easter break, I had a number of phone calls. One person, in particular, said to me: "What can we do to bring back the feeling of wellness that we used to have in being Canadians and in our businesses?" This particular person expressed a fear that things appeared bad and people felt bad, so things got worse and that, if somehow the government could instil confidence in the Canadian people, then there would be a change in the trend.
When people feel better about themselves, they do better things. You invest a little money and you get a lot more in return. I am talking about this with the mining aspect of the budget in mind. If there are no grants-I know the government does not like to have grants of any kind if it can help it-then have an enticement for the public to use their money to invest in all kinds of businesses which will make our economy strong and bring back the kind of hope and joy to our economy and our people across Canada in all regions of the country.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I am distressed at the rhetoric that we hear from the other side.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We have a problem of a great national debt and we have a problem that the federal government for a long period of time has been financing what are provincial responsibilities. Post-secondary education is a provincial responsibility. Social assistance is a provincial responsibility. Health care is a provincial responsibility. Medicare is a provincial responsibility.
So, here we are with a federal government running a massive deficit and criticism all over the place by those on the other side. When something is done to redress that imbalance by asking those provinces running in surplus to pay for the programs that they ought to pay for anyway, we hear crying, weeping, and wailing. Now what kind of nonsense is that?


Dennis Joseph Mills: We were constructive. We are listening to the people.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: My friend says he is constructive. This week the province of British Columbia produced a balanced budget, indeed a budget forecasting a surplus. The province of British Columbia is well able to look after those in that province in distress who need social assistance, day care, and all of the things that our people in urban societies require. That province is running a surplus and we hear cries that the Canada Assistance Plan for the province of British Columbia is being cut to a growth rate of only 5 per cent, approximately the inflationary rate. Surely to goodness, the province of British Columbia, in its financial position, can look after its own.
The same can be said for the province of Ontario which last year ran a surplus. Tomorrow, Mr. Nixon comes forth with his budget. I will bet it is a surplus budget. I will bet, notwithstanding the changes proposed in this bill, that the provincial economies, the provincial tax measures, and the burgeoning growth of revenues from those provinces, are more than sufficient to handle the problems of those provinces.


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I could not let the hon. member get by without correcting him on one point. He makes reference to the province of British Columbia and its recent budget-


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member should know that this is a point that he may want to raise in debate at a later time, but this is not a point of order. The hon. member for Mississauga South.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Never mind, Madam Speaker, he never makes sense anyway.
We have a situation where provinces are strong, where provinces have ample revenue. Indeed, we have a situation where the treasurer of the province of Alberta boasts that he is so rich that he does not even need to have a provincial sales tax. We have these people crying on behalf of the wealthy. With the condition of the economy of this country, surely it is an obligation of all of us to say to those governments that can raise the money:
April 23, 1990

"Raise the money and pay your own bills. Don't be looking for hand-outs from the federal government."
Surely that ought to be the aegis of how operate the finances of this country in the 1990s. We cannot go back to old history and say: "At one time the federal government had the wherewithal to make massive transfers." Therefore, ever and ever and ever it should make these massive transfers. That cannot be the case. Surely there is a time when some sense of fiscal responsibility ought to be heard. These people claim they want to be government. The Liberal party claims it has the whim of public opinion behind it, that it has massive public support.
If they are going to be government, how do they propose to pay the bills? Do they propose to invent new trees behind Parliament Hill where they can pluck the $100 bills. Or, do they propose to rearrange the financing of the country in a more sensible fashion, the kind of rearranging set out in Bill C-69.
We have, unfortunately, the haves and the have nots this country, but surely the haves can carry their own freight. Surely a reasonable way of doing things is the kind of suggestions made by the Minister of Finance in his budget as set out in this bill. To say for one moment that welfare moms are not going to be looked after in rich provinces is to say that the treasurers and health officials of rich provinces are mean spirited, because the very fact of the act itself is a cost sharing act except the federal government has said: "Look, for the time being, we can't cover our full cost share without limit. We are limiting our cost share to 5 per cent. If you want to go further, go further."
Wealthy provinces ought to go a lot further because that is their responsibility. They have a balanced budget. They are, in many cases, in surplus or could easily be in surplus.
In my province, a Liberal government has increased the public service by 9,000 persons in four and a half years. Isn't that awful? Isn't that something else again? They clearly are well off. They are floating in public servants. They could tighten their belts. They could go a lot further on behalf of welfare moms. To blame the federal government because we put a cap on the CAP even though they have a balanced budget is pretty meanspirited, and certainly not within the concepts of the kind of Canada we ought to be building.
Government Orders
Make no mistake about it. No one on this side of the House likes to see cut-backs in social expenditures, but members on this side of the House have to be responsible. It is easy to call for more and more and more. Let's see some responsibility. Let's see some sense of leadership. Let's see if they can justify their role in the poll, or is it only because we are unpopular? Put your vote and park it with them, because it must be just a park. They do not show any leadership and they do not have any policies. This bill is a sensible bill because it comes to grips with the EPF, the CAP, the growth of expenditures and the transfers made from the federal government to the provinces.
Is it conceivably fair that the federal government should limit the growth of its departments to less than 3.5 per cent, year after year, back to back, from 1984 forward and these transfer programs increase at 6 per cent to 7 per cent per annum? Is it fair that those transfer payments should exceed the growth of federal departments year after year just because of an old agreement? That is how we got in the hole in the first place. We have to get this country out of the hole. We have to get this country standing on its own feet again. We have to get this country so it can pay its bills. We cannot pay our bills by encouraging profligacy in the hands of the provinces. It is time that the opposition understood that and opposition speakers spoke sensibly, asked themselves in their own conscience where the money is supposed to come from, paid attention to the deficit and did not say more, more, more, Ma'am, ever more, even though their plates are full.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Mississauga South is someone for whom I have a lot of respect.
I want to tell you that today he was quoting selectively. We only have two provinces in this country that have a balanced budget. I am not here today to defend the provinces. I tend to think that in some respects the provinces should be carrying more of the burden in this country.
What we on this side of the House are trying to say is that if you have some productivity in the country and all of a sudden it will produce some goods and services that will cost a lot less, that in turn will promote foreign investment and bring interest rates down which will affect everything from mortgage payments to the cost of servicing the national debt. When you ask what we over here will do to pay the bills, one thing we will do is listen to people because this government is not listening to what people are saying. You ask how we are going to get

April 23, 1990
Government Orders
out of the hole. The only way we will get out of the hole is to galvanize people in the country. They must pull their weight and then some. Because this government does not listen, it does not get the kind of productivity that is needed to get out of the hole.
My question to the member is this. He knows the importance of global productivity. This was a man who during the last election kept his trust with the people. He was the only member on that side of the House who admitted that the GST was going to add an extra $10 billion on to consumers. That trust was respected by the people of Canada at that time. When he knows what the GST is doing to the morale of this country, will he not agree that by increasing the morale we get productivity, lower interest rates and that is the way to attack the deficit in every part of the country.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, when you write books on tax reform and you mix tax reform with Bill C-69 and then you confuse the GST with tax reform, you begin to wonder where the hon. member comes from. But let us deal with-


Dennis Joseph Mills: Drop the smugness.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The goods and services tax is a tax provision that changes our consumption taxes and increases the productivity of the country by 1.4 per cent on average, increases the gross domestic product by $10 billion, increases the employment in the country by 60,000 a year-


Dennis Joseph Mills: It's a disincentive.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: -and so it is the kind of thing he ought to be advocating. But let us get on to this bill.
Here is a situation where the EPF has been growing by 6.3 per cent on average since 1984-85. While other government expenditures have been kept below inflation, indeed a full 1 to 1.5 percentage points below inflation, the EPF has been growing at 1.5 times inflation. What we have is a curtailment on the EPF transfers for two years to those provinces that can well afford to take the hit. What we have on the CAP is a restriction to those provinces-not to 3.5 per cent as federal departments are restricted, but to 5 per cent, instead of a CAP growth of an annual 6.7 per cent for a period of time.
Surely to goodness that is what he ought to be addressing. What he ought to be addressing is the fact-


Dennis Joseph Mills: You should be addressing the morale of this country.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The morale of this country is right, and the morals of the country, too, the morals of someone who would say: "You are honest; you said there was going to be an increase of $10 billion." There is not. There would have been if we had played with the New Zealand figures and a whole lot of other concepts. But all you do is read headlines. My friend is a headline reader and a headline hunter. Big headlines, big hunter, big nothing on that.
Madam Speaker, the answer is that this bill is important for Canada and the Liberal party ought to stand up for it.


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, I have two questions for my friend from Mississauga South. The first, he made reference in his speech about-


An hon. member:: So you're friends now!


Brian L. Gardiner: The member wonders whether I should use the word "friend". My colleague from Mississauga South commented in his speech about the provinces being wealthy and therefore it should not be a big problem with the bill we are currently debating. He mentioned the surplus in British Columbia and it is obvious he has done some research on this. In fact he would know by looking at the budget, as I am sure he has done, that this so-called balanced budget was created from a fund called the Budget Stabilization Fund.
In light of his comment that the province has a surplus, and in light of the Social Credit BS Fund, my first question is can he explain how the BS Fund in British Columbia operates. Second, he asked about the opposition being responsible. I am wondering if along that line he would then support my private member's bill that would call on the federal government to ensure that when these transfer payments to the provinces are made for health and post-secondary education. For this accountability and responsibility that the member talks
April 23, 1990

about so often, would he support a bill that would impose upon the federal government an obligation to ensure that those funds are spent in those areas?
The first question asks for an explanation of the Budget Stabilization Fund in British Columbia; the second one, is he prepared to be responsible as he says he is?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: We will deal first with the fund in British Columbia. The government there has had the ability to put money aside and raise surpluses for many years. Indeed, the time has long passed when this measure should have been brought forth. The ability of the province of British Columbia to generate revenue, to pay the costs of its services, is well known.
Whether their surplus comes from stabilization funds, heritage funds or extra money that is put aside because they have taken more in taxes in the past than they needed to, indicates that they have the ability to pay their bills and look after them well.
Let us deal with the other issue. The other issue is EPF and whether it ought to be designated. My friend may not know it but there is an arrangement in the portion of the Established Programs Financing dealing with post-secondary education requiring an accounting that the money in that transfer go to post-secondary education. Unfortunately, the EPF is so structured that every province has been able to show that the cash portion of the EPF represents more cash than they pay to post-secondary education.
The EPF is a complicated program. It involves cash, tax transfers and the understanding of what tax points are worth. The consequence is that only part of the transfer is cash. In every provincial case with respect to education, the actual provincial expenditure for education exceeds the cash portion of the EPF transfer allocated to education.
Having said that, that is what managed to be accomplished in the 1982 and 1984 Parliament, and nothing much more than that. I wish my friend well but the whole concept of the Established Programs Financing Act will have to be rewritten, probably later in this Parliament.


Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Madam Speaker, it is with great concern that I rise today to speak on Bill C-69.
Government Orders
My concern is that this government is once again introducing legislation which will impose further burdens on the sectors of our society which are least able to cope.
Bill C-69, an act to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures, will actually amend four existing programs: the Canada Canadian Assistance Plan, CAP; the Established Programs Funding, EPF; The Canadian Explorations Incentive Program, CEIP; and the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act.
Bill C-69 is part of the "Magic Michael Show". The Minister of Finance is going to make the deficit disappear.
Unfortunately, as in any magic show, nothing really disappears. It seems to, but then it reappears again. This is the real story of Bill C-69. It is an exercise in camouflage. The federal government transfers program responsibilities to the provinces. Presto! The federal debt load is reduced. The sad reality is that the financial burdens have simply been transferred to the provinces. Bill C-69 does not solve any problems; it just reassigns the responsibility.
The bottom line is that the ultimate burden rests with Canadian taxpayers. The problem here is that the system is not equitable. Some taxpayers, especially those in disadvantaged areas of this country, have to carry a disproportionate share of the load.
I think all Canadians have agreed that the federal deficit is a problem. However, I do not think that there is any consensus that the way to resolve it is to simply shift the burden to the provinces.
In his budget speech, the Minister of Finance said that he will reduce the deficit, and then he laid out a schedule complete with dates and amounts.
I believe he projected an interest rate of 11 per cent. That is another story and I will come back to it a little later.
The statement in the budget, however, that really strained credulity was: "There will be no new taxes in this budget". No new taxes.
William Shakespeare once said:
What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name
would smell as sweet.
A tax by any other name is still a tax, and it still hurts.

April 23, 1990
Government Orders
A tax increase is a tax increase no matter what you choose to call it. No sleight-of-hand, no amount of chicanery can change that. Canadians know what a tax increase is. After all, they have seen over 30 of them since this government came to power a little over five years ago.
The loss of revenue for the provinces due to Bill C-69 will total $1 billion in this fiscal year, $1.8 billion in 1991-92, and $8.4 billion over the next five years. This is a significant loss of revenue for the provinces no matter how you rationalize it. What options are left to the provinces? The number one option would be to increase their borrowing to offset the losses in transfer payments in order to maintain the current programs. The second option is to raise taxes, thereby offsetting the previously mentioned federal cut-backs. They could reduce programs so that they would not have use either option one or two, or they could combine the above in such a manner as to reduce the pain to a minimum.
Of the four specific areas mentioned in Bill C-69, the most serious blow to provincial budgets is the two-year freeze on EPF funding. Under the EPF, the federal government provides equal per capita financial assistance to all provinces through the transfer of tax points and cash payouts. This transfer was designed to assist provinces in carrying out their responsibilities with regard to health care and post-secondary education.
Since the freeze on EPF transfers affects primarily health care and post-secondary education, we are faced with three serious questions. Will the provinces be forced to make hospitals, schools and universities absorb the federal cuts? Will the sick and disabled have to suffer for this government's mismanagement of the economy? Third, will students be burdened by increased tuition fees?
Education is supposed to be high on the government's priority list. It is supposed to be the base on which we build our competence which will allow us to participate in the developing global marketplace. The government pays lip service on this on the one hand and on the other adopts a policy which runs directly opposite.
Health and education are vital services. These are the services that will suffer most as a result of the implementation of Bill C-69. This is the third time since 1986 that
the Conservatives have decreased contributions to financing for post-secondary education and health care. Once again the government is ignoring the concerns of Canadians. Recent polls show that 88 per cent of Canadians oppose curbing federal-provincial transfers for health care and higher education.
It seems clear that the implementation of Bill C-69 will affect some provinces more than others. By making the maximum 5 per cent annual growth of CAP contributions apply only to the so-called richer provinces of Ontario, Alberta and B.C., the government is probably trying to give the impression that it is helping the lower-income provinces and penalizing the wealthier provinces, thus effecting a more equitable distribution of the national wealth. But this is not so.
It is a false and misleading impression. First, it is the EPF, not the CAP, which constitutes the largest transfer program to provinces. In the case of the Atlantic region the greatest proportion of federal support is now actually in the form of equalization payments. For example, P.E.I. received a total of $298 million in federal transfers during the year 1988-89-90. Of the $298 million, only $23 million was contributed under the CAP program whereas $98 million was transferred under the EPF and the remaining $195 million was in the form of equalization payments.
I will return to a discussion of equalization payments a little later. As far as Bill C-69 is concerned, P.E.I. as well as the other Atlantic provinces, will be most affected by the cuts in the EPF. The fact that these provinces are exempted from the amendments to the CAP is important, but not nearly as important as the severity of the EPF cuts. Second, we must remember that some provinces have traditionally had to rely more heavily on federal transfer payments than have other provinces. According to a study compiled by the Toronto-Dominion Bank, federal government payments represent a much higher percentage of total revenue for the Atlantic provinces than they do for Ontario.
For example in the fiscal year 1989-90, federal transfer payments accounted for 46.7 per cent of total provincial revenues in P.E.I., but only 13.6 per cent in Ontario. In fact, P.E.I. relies the most heavily on federal transfer payments, followed by Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
April 23, 1990

I want to come back to the possible provincial alternatives if Bill C-69 is implemented.
On of these options is to reduce spending by an amount equal to the federal cutback.
Since this money is designated for health services and post-secondary education, the option is almost beyond consideration. Even at its present level of funding, the health system in most provinces is not meeting the needs of the population. Hospital beds are being closed and hospital staff is being laid off in almost every province. If provinces reduce services or if they resort to user fees-which I believe to be illegal-we will be in danger of looking at two systems of health care. Our medicare system, of which we are justifiably proud, will break down. We will then be looking at one system for the rich and another for the poor. That is not a very appealing alternative.
Post-secondary education is the life blood of our future. We have constantly striven in this country to provide a system whereby every resident has the opportunity to be what he or she wants to be. Tuition fees are already rising. There have been street demonstrations in Quebec recently, protesting tuition increases in that province. Loan and bursary programs are already inadequate. Less well-to-do students are having a very difficult time getting a university education. This is a break with a Liberal legacy that we left to this country.
It is virtually inconceivable that cuts can be made in these two crucially important services. The provinces are then left to choose between increasing their deficits or raising taxes.
If they opt for the former, then we are talking simply of debt transfer. The federal government reduces its deficit; the provinces increase theirs. As I have indicated earlier, have-not provinces will bear a disproportionate burden when such transfers occur.
Moreover, there is a danger that if the provinces do increase their borrowing in response to transfer cuts the impact of the federal deficit cut might be lost. Interest rates and investor confidence might not respond in a positive fashion.
Clement Gignac, senior economist at the National Bank of Canada, warns us that an increase in provincial deficits might make a decline in interest rates less likely. This in turn could have a negative impact on Canada's
Government Orders
credit rating. Provinces, corporations and municipalities whose ratings are linked to that of Canada's would, therefore, also be affected. Mr. Gignac's warning should not be taken lightly.
The only other option for the provinces is to raise taxes. The federal government has, in essence, said: "If you want the programs, you raise the taxes." While this shallow approach has an appeal to some people, the real problem is that this government has been hammering Canadians, particularly middle income Canadians, with tax increases for the past five years. There have been 32 increases, I believe, over the past five years.
But the worst is still to come. The infamous GST, the biggest tax grab in Canadian history, the most unpopular tax in Canadian history, is scheduled to come into effect in 1991. The feds have gone to the tax well so often there is nothing left. Canadians have been bled dry by the most tax-obsessed government that we have seen in the 123 years of our history.
The Canada Assistance Plan provides for a 50-50 cost share of social services and social assistance programs. This plan has been capped at a 5 per cent increase for the so-called wealthy provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario.
However, these provinces have over half the population of the country. Included in these population figures are hundreds of thousands of poor people. Whether they be the working poor, the seasonally unemployed or welfare recipients, they need assistance. Being poor in Toronto, Edmonton or Vancouver is just as bad as being poor in Halifax, Summerside or Tignish. They deserve the same access to assistance. They have a right to the same degree of help no matter where they live in this country.
The member from Mission-Coquitlam made a very eloquent statement on the situation in British Columbia, and I am sure the scenario could be developed for the other two provinces.
One program change which has attracted very little public attention is the Public Utilities Income Transfer Act. This program provides for the transfer to the provinces of 95 per cent of the eligible federal corporate income tax paid by investor-owned electric and gas utilities. To the best of my knowledge, such investment on utilities exists only in Alberta and Prince Edward

April 23, 1990
Government Orders
Island. In all other provinces utilities such as Ontario Hydro are Crown corporations. The province of Prince Edward Island stands to lose $300,000 per year because of amendments to this program. Madam Speaker, $300,000 may not seem to be a very large amount of money to some people or to some provinces. But to a small province like P.E.I., $300,000 is a significant amount and one which they can ill-afford to lose especially in view of the other transfer reductions that have been imposed.
Utility costs in Prince Edward Island are astronomical in comparison to those in Alberta or Ontario or Quebec. We have no oil or gas resources, we have no capacity to produce hydroelectric power. It seems grossly unfair that P.E.I. should be further targeted for hardship by cutting back on this particular income tax transfer program.
Prince Edward Island will lose $4.4 million in fiscal year 1991 because of the EPF reductions. In 1991-92 this reduction will increase to $8.5 million. To each of these totals must be added the $300,000 left in the income tax transfer program for utilities. This means that just from these two budget areas Prince Edward Island will lose almost $5 million this year and almost $9 million next year. However, this is only part of the story. The unkindest cut of all came on the last day of the fiscal year 1989-90. Unbeknownst to P.E.I. Department of Finance officials, a capping provision which had been built into the equalization formula in 1982 came into play.
On March 30, 1990, almost two weeks after bringing in a provincial budget based on expected equalization payments, the Minister of Finance was informed that federal equalization payments for the province would be cut by $18.3 million over the next two years but a whopping $13.6 million of that $18 million of that would be for the current year, a year for which the budget had already been prepared and had already been brought in to the House. This is the great example of the government snubbing their nose at the expense of the smallest province in Canada.
The reduction in equalization payments, EPF payments and PUITTA payments will cost Prince Edward Island almost $20 million this year and again next year. According to the Minister of Finance a good part of this
year's shortfall will have to borrowed. That portion of the federal deficit has simply been transferred to the Government of Prince Edward Island. The general situation in P.E.I. can be extended throughout most of Atlantic Canada.
Equalization payments now exceed EPF as the largest form of federal support in the region. The cut-backs and transfers for the area are brutal. The federal government calls our program a frontal attack on the deficit. Analysts are much more cynical. They call it "throwing down the gauntlet to the provinces" or "transferring the tax heat." One of the greatest problems we face in the country today is the Canadian public's lack of confidence in this government. There is, of course, good reason for this lack of confidence. This government came to power in 1984 with promises to better manage the economy and to reduce the deficit. In a five year period of economic growth and prosperity they manage to double the deficit.
Forecasts in last year's budget have been proven to have come from fantasy land. This year's budget has been based on what have been charitably described as highly questionable assumptions. Two months after its introduction, the forecast on interest rates has been proven to be totally unrealistic. Instead of being in the 11 per cent area they have now risen to 14.75 per cent, the highest since the recession in the early 1980s.
The Prime Minister forecasts a decline in interest rates but the Governor of the Bank of Canada says we have to maintain high interest rates to fight inflation. Now we have both high interest rates and increasing inflation. The Conference Board of Canada predicts that we will have high interest rates for at least another two years. The whole situation will be compounded by the introduction of the goods and services tax.
This new tax will drive the inflation rate up to 6.3 per cent from the federal level of 5.4 per cent. Labour unions are now bargaining for cost of living clauses in their new collective agreements. As workers try to protect themselves from the effects of the GST, the inflation rate could rise even higher in response.
Unemployment is expected to rise to 8.2 per cent next year, up from 7.9 per cent for this year. Economic growth is predicted to slow to 1.5 per cent from 1.9 per cent this year.
April 23, 1990

At the Bank of Nova Scotia in Summerside this morning, personal loans of up to $10,000 cost 17 per cent. Mortgages of one, three or five years now cost 14.75 per cent.
All of this points in one direction-to a recession.
I want to close with a few words on the cumulative effects of the budget and government policy in general as it applies to Prince Edward Island.
The province realizes that it has to do its share and it has indicated time and again its willingness to do so. But as the federal government introduces each individual piece of legislation, it uses the same argument-everyone has to do their share.
I contend some people and some provinces are doing more than their share. Bill C-69 cuts millions of dollars of revenue from Prince Edward Island. It reduces equalization payments and cuts millions more. Changes in UI legislation will take further millions out of the economy. Closure of CFB Summerside takes away $50 million from the economy of that town.
By the way, Madam Speaker, in a few days we will be observing the first anniversary of the announcement of the closure of CFB Summerside, and we are still anxiously awaiting the fulfilment of the promise that the federal government has made to have a comparable federal offset for the area.
There have been cuts and cancellations of ERDAs, particularly in the tourism area.
Then, there are what we could call, I suppose, indirect financial losses. These are the abandonment of the railroad, the cancellation of VIA, cuts to CN Marine subsidies, and cuts to small craft harbour budget.
All of these either reduce our revenues or increase our cost of doing business.
It is the cumulative effect of these measures that has laid such a heavy burden on the shoulders of the people of Prince Edward Island and has turned its residents so bitterly against this government.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, it is with a certain amount of sadness that I listen to my colleague from Egmont speak of the disastrous effect that this bill is going to have on his province.
Government Orders
I am from an island province too, and I would like to zero in on one particular aspect of what my colleague from Egmont had to say. In order to do this I have to quote from a comment made by the present Minister of Finance. In 1982 he said:
Cuts to EPF could have disastrous effects on the universities and on
the colleagues, on the hospital funding, and on the operation of the
hospitals.
I would like to zero in on this. Let us not make hospitals, universities, and colleges a battleground between the federal government and the provincial governments. Let us solve those problems-not on the backs of the hospitals and universities, let us solve the problems outside of that arena.
Of the $7,364 billion that this will mean to the provinces in the next five years, I am sure the House will find it interesting to recall that $5.3 billion of that is for health care, and $2.1 billion is for post-secondary education.
My concern is with health care. Coming from the province of Newfoundland, like Prince Edward Island, we do not have a large budget. Our concern with health care is very genuine. Not only do we not have the money to pay for it-despite what the hon. member from Mississauga South said about half an hour ago-we have an aging population. Although I do not have the statistics I am very much aware that the age of the population of Newfoundland per capita is generally older than it is for the rest of Canada. As it is, it is over 11 per cent now in this country, and I do not have to tell you, Madam Speaker, that our population is aging in a general sense and we are looking at close to 20 per cent just beyond the year 2000. So we have little money and we have an aging population. The other thing that concerns me is the rising cost of the high technology equipment in hospitals.
In support of what the member had to say I would ask for his comments on it as well. In the past three weekends I have been associated with two of the three major hospitals in my riding. One is the Cross Memorial Hospital in Clarenville, the distribution centre of that part of the riding. It is a secondary care hospital which serves 35,000 people. The other hospital is the Carbo-near Hospital which, although it is in the biggest town in my riding, basically serves the whole of one of the three peninsulas of about 45,000 people. Both these hospitals have had to organize themselves into memorial trust

April 23, 1990
Government Orders
foundations so that they can actually go out and raise money.
In the case of the Cross Memorial Hospital it costs over $1 million just to keep up with the equipment needed to provide the kind of care people in my riding, and I am sure in rural areas, deserve and need and certainly should be used to without having to do these things. That is certainly one of my concerns.
I would like to ask my hon. colleague from Egmont if that particular experience has been witnessed by him and his constituents as well?


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for the question.
The result of the transfer payment cuts to Prince Edward Island, is the same as in Newfoundland. We only have one university, a community college, two major hospitals and a number of smaller hospitals. As my colleague stated a lot of the care in these hospitals is extended care because of the aging population.
With the bad news that the provincial government received at the end of the fiscal year, we are going to lose $13.6 million which was supposed to go to education and hospitals is no longer there. They were counting on it and all of a sudden, poof, it was gone. They are now forced to borrow to maintain the level of services of last year.
The other point is that as far as our universities are concerned, we are coming into a world where everyone tells us that we have to compete on a global basis. The only way to compete on a global basis is to have a population trained and prepared to work in a global atmosphere. At the same time we are making it more difficult for our students to prepare themselves in order to enter into the global marketplace and help Canada take its place there.
What the government is doing is actually counter-productive. The government is telling us what we have to do but it is making it as difficult as possible to prevent us from doing so.


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I also have a question for the member for Egmont. I wonder if he would comment on the three cuts to the transfers to provinces made by the former Liberal government when it was in power. You will remember that the end of block funding in 1977 constituted a reduction in federal funding to the provinces and the removal of the revenue guarantee in 1982 did
something like take $6 billion over five years out of the province's funding from the federal government. You will remember, too, the six and five restraints in 1983 which took almost half a billion dollars away from the provinces for post-secondary education.
I wonder if he would like to indicate why when the Liberal government makes cuts to EPF it is acceptable, but when the Conservative government makes cuts in the same area it is not acceptable.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Madam Speaker, it must really be consoling for the New Democratic Party because they have never been in government and the prospects of ever being in government are almost nil-


An hon. member:: Hear, hear. Well done!


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: -with their righteous indignation and picking away at everything.
I want to give an example. In Prince Edward Island when the present provincial government took over from the Conservative government in 1986, it was running a deficit of $30 million a year. It was able to take that $30 million deficit to almost a zero situation, a balanced budget situation.
The point is, it was able to do it, unlike the people across the way, and retain its popularity. The popularity of the present government of Joe Ghiz in Prince Edward Island is running at something like 72 per cent, as compared to 17 per cent for the government across the way.
I would like to address it, rather than the NDP, because it is really not coming from anywhere since it has not been anywhere.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, I found it rather interesting to hear the comments about how successful Prince Edward Island had been in almost balancing its budget since the Liberal government came into place there. Similarly, that seems to be happening in Ontario.
To go back to Prince Edward Island, my constituents in Ontario continuously ask me: "Where does all this money that we, the taxpayers of Ontario, pay go to?" I would like to ask the member from Prince Edward Island, just how many dollars it got from the federal government last year so that it was able to almost balance its budget, compared to what it got previously? What percentage increase did it get? What percentage of increase in spending did it get? Did it balance its budget because the federal government and the taxpayers of my
April 23, 1990

constituency were sending money its way? Or, did it balance it through frugal control of its expenditures?
I would suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that the way he should answer that is: "We balanced our budget because Ontario sent us all kinds of money, not because we controlled our expenditures." I would ask the hon. member to answer that question.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Madam Speaker, we appreciate every dollar that Ontario sends to Prince Edward Island, because it is well spent and the people there really appreciate it.
I want to ask him: How would he feel if the auto industry in southern Ontario closed down at the same time as CFB Summerside closed down? That devastated our economy.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, I was distracted by the brilliant intervention in the debate by my friend from the riding of Ontario in the province of Ontario who, when he is not making insightful remarks in this House, is out busily mailing cheques to charity cases like P.E.I. and Newfoundland, if you were to take him seriously.
First, let us get something straight around here.


Mrs. Finestone:: You can't expect them to get it straight.


Roger Simmons: The gentleman from Calgary Southeast feels a speech coming on. Does he want to do it first and make history with his maiden speech and the whole works?
I am saying to his colleague from the riding of Ontario that he does himself, his constituency, his province and the country no justice at all when he gets on about that nonsense about how he is bailing everybody out down in P.E.I., and so on.
We have a thing in this country called Established Program Financing. We have a thing in this country called sharing. We have a thing in this country called a federal system. How much longer it is going to last with the way his crowd are botching it is another question. But we have a system, and we have a number of equal units called provinces, not so many basket cases and then
Government Orders
so many provinces who can call the shots because they are paying so many of the bills.
I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, why the riding of Ontario and the province of Ontario should be giving blood money to P.E.I. and Newfoundland. I can only talk for Newfoundland, and I suspect my colleague from Egmont can be equally lucid in terms of why it is so in P.E.I. As far as Newfoundland is concerned, in 1949 we paid a price for joining Canada. We are proud Canadians. I and my friend from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, I believe, are the only two people in the Chamber these days-together with my good friend from Port aux Basques, one of the pages, Corey Crewe, working in the Chamber right now-and my other colleagues from Newfoundland, of course, Humber-St. Barbe-Baie Verte, Labrador and Gander, Grand Falls. I think we are the only people who frequent the Chamber these days. Do not let me forget my bosom pal from St. John's West and my good friend from St. John's East. In that group, save the page who is too young to have been around in 1949, we are the only people in the Chamber who deliberately chose Canada. Either we, or our parents for us, in a ballot chose Canada so we are here by choice and we are proud to be here.
With that preamble, let us call spades spades. Part of the price we paid in 1949 for joining Canada, to protect the manufacturing sector in Ontario and Quebec, was to sacrifice our fairly vibrant manufacturing sector in a number of areas. Yes, we will take the blood money any day at all and make no apologies for it.
I say to the member from the riding of Ontario that it is a small price to pay for what they did to our manufacturing industry, our fish processing industry, and our salt fish industry in 1948-49. If he wants to debate that issue and brag about the largesse of his pocket-book in mailing a few pittances down to the poor people in the basket case that he wants to call P.E.I., we will set him straight on that any time.
I remind him that in the great riding of Ontario he has a number of constituents who chose Canada and who had the good fortune and good sense to be born in Newfoundland. If he does not know where they are, I will show him a few thousand because he has several thousands. He would do well not to put his foot so far down his throat as he has today ever again. Never again.

April 23, 1990
Government Orders
Because he insults every Newfoundland-born member in his constituency, every person in P.E.I. and so many other provinces, and insults his colleagues from ridings like Broadview-Greenwood and Burlington.
I want to talk for a moment about Bill C-69, Madam Speaker. It is euphemistically described as an act to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures. Does it not bring tears to your lovely eyes? To enable restraint of certain government expenditures. That is what they call it. We had a researcher look at it. Here is what she said. This bill would freeze federal transfer payments. This bill would limit the increase of transfer payments to certain provinces. This bill would eliminate the Canadian Exploration Incentives Program. This bill would freeze public utility income tax transfers over the next couple of years. Let us call spades spades. This has very little to do with restraint as such. It has got to do with parading the old right-wing agenda of the government. In speaking of right-wingers, where is the gentleman from Mississauga South?


An hon. member:: He went outside.


Roger Simmons: You are not allowed to say that in this Chamber. All you can say is that you do not presently see him. I do not see him and I wish I could. I hope he can hear me because I wanted to respond to a couple of things that he raised today.
When I heard him I sent to the library because there is something I never had a chance to find. There is a little passage in holy scripture which comes to mind when I hear that person get up. It is a passage having to do with Pontius Pilate. If ever I saw the Pontius Pilate approach I saw it today. It is the old "Let's wash our hands of all this now. It is somebody else's problem." It is the provinces' problem.
Tell that to the students whom I met two weeks ago in St. John's. There were 3,000 students from the marine institute, from the Cabot Institute and from Memorial University. Tell the many among them who will not be able to go back to university that it is the provinces' fault in the words of the Pontius Pilate from Mississauga South.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: Is the member for Cambridge out of his seat? He is the other person I wanted to talk to about his many thousands of Newfoundland constituents, though his friend from the riding of Ontario has quite a number of them too, as he will be aware.
Madam Speaker, I say to the hon. member for Mississauga South that it is not the provinces' problem, that it is a pathetic whimpering attack on the provinces. I want to know where is the national reconciliation that our boy from Baie Comeau was going to inflict on this country? Everyone was going to be nationally reconciled whether they wanted to be or not.
Now his whipping boy, his hired gun from Mississauga South is telling us it is the big, bad provinces that have created this problem. They are spending like a bunch of drunken sailors on sinful things like post-secondary education. How decrepit and immoral can you get that people in Newfoundland want to send their youngsters to university. How immoral, how terrible. Then the hired gun from Mississauga South, the apologist for the GST, tells us that it is the provinces we have to blame. He comes up with the same script and tends to deliver it with a bit more bravado than most over there. That is because he has more bravado than most over there. That is because he is well practised at bravado. He has done it by insulting Newfoundlanders who he said did not have anything worth while to say on the GST so he would not take the committee there.
He has done it by practising on Albertans who he said needed some grade six teachers to help them out. So he has had a lot of practise in bravado, innuendo and insulting. I am not surprised that he reads the script a bit better than my friend from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve would. He is good at it. I have to say to him without offence that he does not do it with nearly as much bravado because he is a much gentler soul than the man from Mississauga South. That is to the credit of the gentleman from Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
Here is what the gentleman from Mississauga South says. "How are we going to pay for all those programs?", those big sinful programs that actually send people to university down in the basket cases of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland, if you are to take his words for it. How? I will tell him how. For a start the
April 23, 1990

government can stop the nonsense that I am sure you have heard about.
Did you hear that the Prime Minister did not like the cars in Costa Rica too well? Did you hear there were a couple flown down there for him? That is right. The government flew them down. He needed a few just in case one broke down. He would need a back-up car. You cannot have the Prime Minister running around the country on a flat tire. You cannot have the Prime Minister riding around in a foreign limousine. I mean how indecent do you want us to get up here? So, we send down a back-up limousine too. But it forgot one important detail. It forgot the gas. It couldn't move the two cars except by plane, of course. You can always move cars by plane if you own the plane or own the government that has the tax money to pay for the planes. So, it was not difficult. The government got the cars there and got them back. To its credit they never put a mile on the cars. How about that for restraint? That is the ultimate restraint. Bring a car but do not drive it.


An hon. member:: We saved the gas.


Roger Simmons: How are we going to pay for it? I will tell him how we are going to pay for it. We are going to pay for it by not wasting the taxpayers' money for that kind of frivolous expenditure. I know that one frivolous expenditure will not pay for many students to go to university but it is an example. I can tell other examples about the expenditure on 160 mini-vans when the government held the Open Skies Conference. That cost a few thousand bucks to get the luggage back and forth to the airport. I can tell about the cars that went to Halifax. There are a lot of examples like that where the government could save a few shekels here and there and maybe in the process we could get a few youngsters to stay in university with a few more federal government dollars.
The gentlemen from Mississauga South gets very patronizing then. He says "I understand". With his big, big heart, he says "I understand there are have not provinces and there are have provinces". Then he proceeds "Let the rich pay". Let the rich pay. I wish I could say to him "Physician, heal thyself". Let the rich pay. Let us see how the rich individuals have paid, since
Government Orders
he might apply to individuals his same credo that he wants us now to apply to the provinces.
Here is how they paid. When this government took office six years ago the people of Canada were paying a certain level of taxation for everything federal, income tax and so on and so forth. I say this to the gentleman from the riding of Cambridge. If one of his constituents earns $35,000 or less today-and I know what the member earns-then that constituent is paying $1,200 more a year today than he was in 1984 in all forms of federal taxes-$1,200 more. On the other hand, if my friend from the riding of Cambridge has a constituent who is earning $100,000 or more, that constituent is actually paying $1,600 less in 1990 than he was in 1984.
If we have a new credo from this government now through its hired gun from Mississauga South that the rich are going to pay-and I know he meant provinces-I hope that out of the kindness of his heart and his well-known dedication to consistency that he will now recommend to the Minister of Finance that maybe the rich people in this country ought to carry their fair share of the load too.
I see the gentleman from Cambridge. I am sure he is going to be in caucus on Wednesday advocating that very point. I have a few more for him if he wants a few ideas.


Mr. Sobeski:: The unemployment rate went from 12 per cent to 4 per cent in Cambridge. How do you explain that?


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, I have a question before the question, but a good question nonetheless.
How do I explain the fact that the unemployment rate has gone down in the riding of Cambridge? The whole point that we were making a few minutes ago was that if you front-end load your manufacturing sector and pack it all down to southern Ontario something has got to give. That something is called jobs. You have lots of jobs down there.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: And 18,000 people from your province live there.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, nobody has ever said that his riding has a high unemployment rate. That is not the problem at all. The problem is that we are running this government as though there were no extremities to

April 23, 1990
Government Orders
the country, as though there was no need out there in fisheries, in agriculture, or in the Summersides of this world. That is the problem.
I understand what the member is saying because my friends from Newfoundland who live in Cambridge tell me all the time. Cambridge is doing very well, thank you very much. We understand that despite the member Cambridge is doing very well, thank you very much.


Mr. Richardson:: It's the same thing in Alberta.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, it is really instructive just to stand here and watch.


Lee Richardson: For you it is, but for the rest of us it's boring.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Roger Simmons: None is so deaf as he who will not hear. It is instructive to watch my friend from Calgary Southeast.


Lee Richardson: The unemployment rate dropped 5 per cent in Alberta since the Tories came to power.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member may want to rise on debate and make his points later. The hon. member for Burin-St. George's has the floor.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, you give the gentleman the benefit of the doubt, but I think much too generously. He does not want to rise on debate at all, since he might have to put on the record where he stands on this infamous bill. I invite the member for Calgary Southeast to get up and tell us what is good about this bill.
I understand that the unemployment rate is pretty good in that area. That is why no fewer than three of my sisters have gone there. I will have to check and double check before I commit the cardinal sin, but I think some of them have the good fortune to live in his riding. So if he wants to add to his mailing list he should talk to me after the debate. That is why they have been there all those years. It is because the economy is being gutted head on back home. They cannot get the jobs there. They have had to pick up their bags and go elsewhere, to places like Calgary, Cambridge and Fort McMurray in the riding of Athabasca. They have even gone to Mississauga South. Newfoundlanders are brave souls. Some of them have even settled in Mississauga South, the riding
of the gentleman who spoke a few minutes ago in the debate.
Madam Speaker, I am sure my time must be just about out. I have a couple of minutes, I see.
I just want to make a very specific point about those cuts. They are not the first cuts.
Since this government came to power, particularly since 1986, this is the third onslaught on post-secondary education costs. This is at a time when the Minister for Science and others are preaching about the need to adapt to the new age. They are preaching about the need for retraining, for more education and for the ability to compete in the high-tech markets of the world.
Yet what is the government doing with post-secondary education? It is almost too shameful to talk about. The government is cutting the guts out of it completely. In 1986, again after that, and now in 1990-three times- the government has made an onslaught on post-secondary education.
If there is a sector that we ought to be looking to, beefing up and giving almost kid-glove treatment to- certainly realistic treatment to-it is the whole area of post-secondary education, universities, community colleges, trade colleges and the like. What is the government doing instead? It is making an onslaught on them.
If there were time I would talk about the Canada Assistance Plan. I would talk about the mining incentives and how they have had an impact for good in Newfoundland and other parts of this country. Unfortunately, my time is just about up.
In conclusion, Bill C-69, like a number of others which have come into this House, should hardly be dignified with a vote of any kind. But if members on the opposite side of the House want to redeem themselves from that infamy which we saw just before Easter when they voted for the GST bill, I invite them to get back on the good side of their constituents. This is the one chance they have. Maybe their constituents will be forgiving. But if these members commit two strikes in a row-GST, plus post-secondary transfer payment decreases-they are asking for real trouble.
Maybe I should use this opportunity before I sit down-in case I do not have a chance later-to say goodbye to them all because they are not going to be here very much longer if they vote for this bill.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!
April 23, 1990


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I thought I might ask the same question that I asked of the member for Egmont of the member for Burin-St. George's.
He will remember that in 1977 the Liberal government cut funding to the provinces with the end of block funding. In 1982, with the end of the revenue guarantee program, there was a further cut to the provinces of some $6 billion. In 1983, the six-and-five restraints ended up by reducing contributions to the provinces by almost $.5 billion.
I wonder if the hon. member could indicate why- since the member for Egmont was not prepared to-the cuts are so terrible when the Conservatives make them, but they are not so terrible when the Liberals make them when they are in power.


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing for the question. When he put it to my colleague, the hon. member for Egmont-and I knew that he would do a good job of answering it, as he did-I found myself rather enviously saying: "If only I got a question like that". I really did not ask him to ask the question. I have to tell you that, Madam Speaker, to start with. I thank him anyway.
The answer is very simple. The answer, first of all, is that a member from a party, which has never been the government and never will be, would not be able to appreciate that sometimes in a government you do tailor, you do make changes. Sometimes you get a signal from the people that enough is enough.
Is his real question: "What distinguishes the Liberals from the Tories?" The NDPers, the arm-chair socialists-if they had to be real socialists they would be in real trouble-can afford to be socialists because they are getting half-decent salaries. If they ever formed the government, they would find this out. In the meantime, they are getting nervous about their place in the polls.
You will notice, Madam Speaker, what is happening. Every day 85 per cent of the country are out there railing at this government. Yet what are members of the NDP doing? They are wondering who is going to have the mate's chair on the Titanic. They are fighting over Titanic chairs, when they ought to be representing the people in an attack on this government. They are elbowing for
Government Orders
room over here because they are worried that we might elbow them out somehow.
I say to him, a man who will never be in government unless he has the good sense to apply for admission to this particular caucus-and we would consider the application because he is a fairly bright fellow-the answer is this. Here is the difference. He is going around telling the country that the Liberals and the Tories are Tweedledum and Tweedledee. When we in 1972 and on other dates began to do things that were not particularly unpopular, we got the message. This crowd does not know how to get the message.
I submit that one of the most fundamental principles of our kind of government, our kind of parliamentary democracy, is, yes, we provide leadership as a government, but you never force leadership down people's throats. You never say to them: "This is medicine. It is nasty but it is going to be good for you". The patient, the country as a whole, must want the medicine.
They said on GST, they said on EPF: "We do not want this medicine". They said it to us in 1977 and 1982 and we heard them. That is the difference between a Liberal and a Tory.
If you want to know the difference between a Tory and an NDPer, one gets into government once in a while, the other one never.


René John Soetens: Madam Speaker, the member for Burin-St. George's in Newfoundland made an excellent presentation. Of course, at the start of his comments he suggested that we from Ontario were not interested in sharing our good fortune with the rest of Canada. However, that is really far from reality because we do wish all of Canada to share in some of the prosperity that we have.
In fact, because the government of Brian Mulroney was elected in 1984 we in fact helped to share in the rest of Canada. We sent to many parts of Canada, through a Progressive Conservative government, some really positive things.
For example, in Newfoundland since 1984 we have created 29,000 new jobs. That compares to the 1,000 that were lost while the member who spoke was in office. Unemployment has fallen by 14,000 in that same

April 23, 1990
Government Orders
five-year period. While he was in office prior to 1984 it rose by 25,000. The list goes on.
Newfoundland unemployment has fallen from 23.5 per cent to 16.2 per cent. The member for Cambridge was referred to before. His unemployment rate had dropped 8 per cent, and that is great. We are sorry we only dropped it 7.5 per cent in Newfoundland, but by gosh we are trying. I think that is what we are supposed to be doing.
All the way through things have been fairly positive. The inflation rate in Newfoundland is less than it is in southern Ontario. Retail sales in December 1989 were 63 per cent higher than when we were elected in 1984. Building permits in 1988 were up 72 per cent from 1984.
The member for Burin-St. George's would lead us to believe that things are absolutely destitute in Newfoundland. I accept that there are people who are in very difficult circumstances. We as a government have to do our utmost to help those people where best we can.
But it is not all bad. Manufacturing shipments from Newfoundland were up 14.8 per cent in 1989. Farm income was up 11.9 per cent. Private sector spending in Newfoundland in construction climbed 35.6 per cent. Exports from Newfoundland were up 137 per cent.
We can go on with a tremendous list of very good accomplishments since 1984. All of those numbers are better than the last time the member who just spoke sat in this House prior to 1984. We are going in the right direction.
What the member for Burin-St. George's did not mention-and I will get to my question-is that while he was in office they drove the deficit to $38.5 billion. So far we have taken it down to $28.5 billion, and we want to go a little further.
Does he believe that all people in Canada should share in the challenge of dealing with the deficit, or just those who for his logic come from Ontario?


Roger Simmons: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Ontario because just as I thought he was going to be completely selective in his quotation of statistics, he half redeemed himself. He was only half selective. He did come so close as to talk about the deficit. He conveniently forgot the public debt. I wonder why.
Let us give him the benefit of the doubt. Let us say that he forgot. For the sake of the House and in the interest of time I will say what he would have said.
He would surely have pointed out that the public debt when the Tories took over in 1984 was of the order of $170 billion.


An hon. member:: $160 billion.


Roger Simmons: I am sorry, $160 billion. I hope the gentleman is listening because he will want to have this for his speech. The Tories took over with a debt of $160 billion, and they have brought it all the way down to $380 billion. Why did he not mention that? Obviously, he forgot.
I have two other quick points in response to what the hon. member had to say. First, when will he and others get the message, whether they are talking Meech Lake, EPF or about anything else concerning the way this country is fabricated and constructed? Either we believe in the equality of every voter in this country, regardless of where he or she lives, or we do not. We are sick and tired-as in stomachy, which is what we say back home- of having it rammed down our throats, just as the hon. member tried to do a minute ago again, that somehow we ought be eternally grateful with the few crumbs coming off the table.
When will the member get the message that we would like to be in a position to help buy the bread to put on the table? We would like to be sitting at the table. We would like to be full partners. Do not give me that patronizing nonsense. What we get in this country, we get as a right. We make no apologies to any man, woman or child in this country for that.
He says things are not destitute in Newfoundland. He ought to come down and visit. If I had time, I would tell him something of the detail of the terrible nightmare that many fishermen in the thousands and many plant workers in the thousands are facing because of the policies of this government. Destitution is not a bad catch-all phrase to describe it. But at another time he and I will talk about that, I am sure.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Resuming debate with the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing.
April 23, 1990


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the 80 per cent of Canadians who oppose the government's initiative in Bill C-69.
Of all the short-sighted, mean-spirited and counterproductive decisions by this government, of which there have been many of course, this current bill represents the worst. Not only will it cause needless human suffering today, as we experience cutbacks in our health care system, but if the government does not change its approach we will condemn our children to a life of mediocrity and ill-health, effectively reversing gains made by our parents and grandparents in building this country.
Let us be clear about what this Tory government is proposing to do. First, it is withdrawing from health care funding, thereby beginning the end of universal medicare and health insurance programs, thus threatening the future health of our children and the sick.
Second, it is withdrawing from post-secondary education, thereby condemning the next generation to lives of hewers of wood and drawers of water, and ensuring the slow decline of Canada in the ranks of the world's nations.
Just to illustrate the extent of the move away from supporting the provinces, the Library of Parliament's figures show that in the nine years from 1986-87 to 1994-95 this government's actions, including the actions in Bill C-69, will take almost $29 billion from the provinces in terms of health care and post-secondary education funding. These are massive cuts in support from the federal government to Canada's health care and post-secondary education system.
We have seen nurses' strikes. We have seen threatened doctors' strikes. We have seen long waiting lists for elective surgery. We have seen Canadians being turned away from hospitals and indeed dying through lack of care.
Canadians are worried, and justifiably so, by a tax on medicare, with the very real threat of one health care system for the rich and another for the poor.
The same goes for the post-secondary education system. Indeed, one eminent president of one of Canada's best universities recently wrote to me saying that our university system has experienced an outstanding fiscal
Government Orders
erosion in the past decade, the magnitude of which is unparalleled in any other Canadian public sector. The situation has become an embarrassment and a concern of monumental proportions.
Our share of the education and training budget for the last few years, according to recent StatsCanada figures, has reduced. Indeed, it is reduced in large measure by comparison to the percentage of Gross National Product. It has been reduced from 1.3 per cent, for example, in 1986-87, to 1.1 per cent in 1988-89. It is continuing to fall.
Total federal government spending, if you exclude the debt charges, rose by 3.6 per cent and 7.6 per cent respectively in 1987-1988 and 1988-1989. By contrast, spending on education rose by only 1.8 per cent and 1.6 per cent, respectively.
Clearly, the federal government's commitment to post-secondary education is reducing by comparison to its commitment to other expenditures in the budget.
Indeed, the increases in education spending are the lowest year over year increases on record, according to the government's own figures from StatsCanada.
In spite of the Prime Minister's rhetoric about social programs being a sacred trust, we have here a major cut to health care funding, Canada's most prized social program. It is little wonder that the Prime Minister's performance rating is only 19 per cent, the lowest of all Prime Ministers since polling started almost 50 years ago.
The Prime Minister has also made commitments about the importance of education and the role of the federal government in ensuring a first-class education system in Canada, and every Canadian's right to a world-class education. Then, immediately afterward, he slashed $10 million from the post-secondary education budget to the provinces over the next nine years.
We have heard a lot, too, about research and development. Indeed, two years ago a committee chaired by the Prime Minister, the National Advisory Board on Science and Technology, looked at research financing and recommended that it be doubled. Our scientists and scholars are operating with resources that continue to place them at a severe disadvantage when we compare them to others in the international community. Yet the proposal to double financing over three years has yet to be

April 23, 1990
Government Orders
implemented. In effect, there is no indication that it ever will be.
There is a national interest in post-secondary education and health care funding. That is why the federal government became involved in supporting the provinces in those two areas in the first place. There has been in the past a commitment to ensure that no matter where a person lives, no matter what a person's financial opportunities might be, they be entitled, as all Canadians are, to the same quality of health care and the same quality of post-secondary education.
Yet this government is either deliberately or recklessly saying there is no longer any public interest in ensuring equal accessibility, regardless of financial means or geographic location. The government is saying that there is no longer a need for health care, academic ability and being able to use education as the criteria by which we will choose those who can have access to health care and post-secondary education. What the government is doing is turning its back on years of development toward more equality in Canada.
No longer will a sick person in Atlantic Canada have the same opportunity for health care as a person in a richer province. No longer will a young person in Saskatchewan have the same educational opportunities as someone in a richer province.
As we all know, the bill attacks the poorer provinces, creating greater strains on federalism without apparent care for the consequences. Fully 70 per cent of the cuts proposed in this bill are in terms of health care, post-secondary education and the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan.
That means that this government's decision to deal with the deficit is to ensure that those who are sick, those who are young and in the process of being educated and the very poorest in our society are to bear the burden of attacking the deficit. Eighty per cent of Canadians have told this government not to follow this approach, but of course as with the goods and services tax, unemployment insurance, VIA Rail and so many other things the government has turned a blind eye and deaf ear to Canadians.
This is a strategy which will tear Canada apart. We cannot encourage tension between the regions. We cannot pit Saskatchewan against Atlantic Canada for our
resources in order to fund health care and post-secondary education. We cannot make it difficult for those in the poorer regions to experience what other Canadians experience.
What we have seen over the last few months is an increase in intolerance in this country and an increase in tension between the regions as a direct result of the government's actions. Bill C-69 is merely one example of that.
The government's approach is easy to predict. As a result of its general philosophy which is reflected in free trade and the goods and services tax, its approach is that the government should withdraw from the economy and that people should look out for themselves. If this means that those living in less well-off areas do without vital health care and post-secondary education services then, according to this government, so be it.
In some parts of our country, including my own province of Saskatchewan, provinces have very little tax room left to make up for reductions in money from the federal government. The effect is that the quality of programs in those provinces declines while better off provinces, such as Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, are able to make up the difference through provincial taxes should they decide to do so.
That increase in regional disparity is something which those of us in the New Democratic Party not only criticize and oppose but know that most Canadians oppose it also.
In addition, we also oppose another thrust of what lies behind the government's actions under Bill C-69. That is with regard to privatization. There are many examples of supporters of the government, including the Canadian Manufacturers' Association and The Globe and Mail who argue for increased privatization both in the health care system and in the post-secondary education system. As for universities and colleges, there are something over 50 universities and colleges at the present time attempting to raise more than $1 billion in revenues to try to make up for some of the shortfalls from both federal and provincial governments.
The withdrawal of the federal government from educational funding is forcing both the gradual privatization of education with concomitant reductions in access and higher tuition fees across the country.
April 23, 1990

Madam Speaker, let me indicate two examples of the calls for privatization just to show that I am not being an alarmist but am indicating that there are many who are calling for this and that the government is responding. The National Citizens Coalition, for example, has argued that the government's monopoly of health care has resulted in inefficiency, cut-backs in services, medical rationing and that it has increased costs astronomically. According to it Canada's health care system needs a dose of competition. It also argues that the Canada health care system would benefit if the government contracted out the management of public hospitals. That is not what most Canadians want.
The nurses also have indicated that the pressure is growing on our medicare system. Indeed, they have argued that medicare is in trouble and that Canadians had better watch out if they want to have the sort of public health care system that we have grown accustomed to in Canada. Of course the federal government's actions under Bill C-69 and related actions in the past have contributed and caused the fears that I have mentioned.
In addition, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association has argued that Canadian universities should be deregulated and that Canadians are paying far too great a share of each student's education costs.
We are seeing pressures and hearing pressures on our health care system and on our post-secondary education system. Rather than respond to them by fighting back and by ensuring that our health and post-secondary systems are the best they can be, the government is giving into those pressures and cutting back on the funding to the provinces. This is having a particularly bad effect on those poor provinces, including the province of Saskatchewan.
The government's view of federal funding to the provinces under the Established Programs Financing arrangements, at least according to the Minister of Finance, appears to be that the moneys can be used by the provinces as they see fit. This is simply not the case.
The Canada Health Act and the Established Programs Financing arrangements are very closely linked, as the Canada Health Act clearly states. Indeed, in the past
Government Orders
both the Minister of Finance when he was in opposition, and other members of his party, have argued very strenuously-that was when the Liberals made cuts to these programs-that the Established Programs Financing arrangements were indeed arrangements which were designed to finance both health care and post-secondary education in the provinces. It seems to me that they cannot have it both ways. They cannot have said, when the Liberals were making cuts, that these cuts were to health and post-secondary education and now when they themselves are making cuts argue that they are for whatever purposes the provinces so desire.
To say that the provinces can do what they want with the money is to ignore the Canada Health Act. To say that, the federal government is not interested any longer in national standards of health care and post-secondary education, both in terms of quality of health care and post-secondary education and in terms of accessibility. As I said, that is not what the Minister of Finance and other Conservative ministers said when they were in opposition and the Liberals were making cuts to EPF.
In 1982, in the budget of then finance minister MacEa-chen, there was an elimination of the revenue guarantee. At the time the present Minister of Finance said that the Liberal minister was prepared to risk major cut-backs in medical care and post-secondary education and that he should not rush into these decisions on a unilateral basis and force spending cuts and service cuts on the provinces.
We all know that the provinces are not in agreement with the cuts that they are facing. We also know that these cuts will affect the services available at the provincial level. The present Minister of Finance said in 1982 that we should not cause closures of hospitals and cut-backs in post-secondary education in this way. The Minister of Finance has had a change of heart and now argues that these expenditures are not for health care and post-secondary education, whereas he quite clearly was of the view that they were in 1982.
Many other members on the government side spoke strenuously against the cuts which were proposed and, indeed, introduced by the Liberal government in 1982 and 1984 and, indeed, pointed out the opportunities

April 23, 1990
Government Orders
which were available to the provinces in the event of such cuts. There really are only four. The provinces can increase revenues if they have the opportunity to do so or they can increase their deficit. They can cut back or reduce services. It seems to me, as the Conservative member said, when faced with those Liberal cuts we really should not do that and, indeed, we cannot do that because of the danger that it will pose to Canadians across the country. The third alternative is to reduce standards of services and the fourth is merely for the provinces to increase taxation. None of those are attractive features and particularly for those provinces which are faced with difficulties in raising any more funds.
As I have raised in questions, I want to make just one brief mention on the fact that, when the Liberal government was in power up until 1984, it made a number of similar attacks on the health care system and on post-secondary education. Those attacks were not as great as those made by the Conservative government but, nonetheless, they indicate a lack of commitment to the health care system and post-secondary education system by Liberal governments of the time.
As I mentioned, in 1977, the end of block funding constituted cuts from the federal government to the provinces. In 1982, there was the removal of the revenue guarantee program which cut some $6 billion over a five-year period from federal transfers to the provinces and the six and five restraints in 1983 cut some $400 million to $500 million out of the education support programs for the provinces.
The irony of Progressive Conservatives and Liberals changing places is not lost on Canadians. When Liberals make cuts to transfers for health and post-secondary education, Progressive Conservative members correctly criticize, and when Progressive Conservative governments make cuts, the Liberals complain.
The Minister of Finance was right in 1982 when he said these cuts would adversely affect health care and postsecondary education across this country and he is wrong now when he says the provinces should be able to spend that money as they see fit. This government has lost track of the lives of ordinary, hard-working Canadians who rely on medicare and who want their children to have a good education. The regions, especially the less well-off provinces, will be devastated by this bill.
The maritime provinces already devote an enormous share of their provincial budgets to health and education costs. Cuts in federal spending will push them to the breaking point, as we have seen in Prince Edward Island, for example, with the provincial budget being pushed into deficit. In Prince Edward Island, health expenditure expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product was over 12 per cent as compared to only 8 per cent for Ontario. In other words, health expenditures make up 50 per cent more available financial resources in P.E.I. than in Ontario.
How will smaller provinces manage, given these cuts? How much less opportunity will they have to make up the cuts given the lack of fiscal base on which to raise other sources of tax revenue? As I have mentioned, the only alternatives are to increase taxes or increase the provincial deficit, or reduce services. None of those options are acceptable to Canadians.
In other words, as we have seen represented in many presentations and many reports, the government is creating a health care system for the rich and a health care system for the poor. It is creating a two-tier health care system, depending on whether you live in a rich province or a poor province, and it will do the same with regard to post-secondary education.
In closing, this government should stand up for the regions, stand up for the needs of Canadians in their health and post-secondary education systems. It should help, not hurt, which is what it is doing with Bill C-69. Government is about choices and this government has chosen the goods and services tax, it has chosen to give big tax write-offs to the rich and to corporations and it has chosen to attack health care and post-secondary education. No wonder the government is at 15 per cent in the polls. The final price, of course, will be paid at the next election.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to what was said by our colleague from the New Democratic Party, and I fully understood the message he was trying to get across. One wonders why, if the government across the way was listening, and I am sure the hon. member for Brampton was listening very carefully and that he will take to heart the points raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing-I would like to ask him whether he was aware of the fact, for instance, that Bill C-69 intends to make budget cutbacks
April 23, 1990

totalling $110 billion this year, $1,780 billion next year and that, spread out over five years, these budgetary compressions will add up to about $8,380 billion.
Of course, my point is that all this will have a very negative impact on the provinces' ability to deal with the financial problems they will have as a result of the federal government's decisions. For instance, there is the impact that this budgetary restraint will have on welfare rates in the provinces, and so forth. I would like to tell him that, for instance, in my riding, in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the federal government intends to use Bill C-21 to cut benefits to workers, which will cause an increase in the number of people on welfare, because people will exhaust their unemployment insurance benefits faster. So there will be an increase in the number of people on welfare, and at the same time, the federal government, which gives these funds to the provinces, is saying: Listen, we know you are going to have more welfare recipients, but we are cutting back just the same. Doesn't he agree that these cutbacks are entirely unreasonable and that, in fact, the government is not saving one cent? It is just passing the problem on to someone else.
[English ]


Chris Axworthy: I am
not sure that the hon. member asked me a question, Madam Speaker, but that clearly is what is taking place with this particular bill, indeed with the general activities of the government surrounding the budget at the present time.
The budget has been described as a pass-the-buck budget and that clearly is what it does. It transfers the responsibility for dealing with the deficit from the federal government to the provincial governments. It chooses to attack health care programs, post-secondary education systems and the poorest of Canadians by its decision to put a cap on the Canada Assistance Program. That is the decision the government has made. That is not the choice or the decision the government had to make, it is the one it decided to make and Canadians, of course, will not forget that.
It is an unacceptable approach for the government to take in dealing with the deficit. No one, I think, is arguing that the deficit is something which should not be
Government Orders
attacked. We all agree, that the government has an obligation and that indeed we all have an obligation to deal with the deficit. The question is how we are going to deal with it. Are we going to deal with it by attacking those who are less well off in our society, are we going to deal with it by attacking those who have less opportunity to fight back, or are we going to do so by increasing the tax burden on the well-off and the corporations in Canada, for example, as well as doing such things as attacking interest rates?
The government, as we know, has chosen to attack the less well off and those who are less capable of protecting themselves. That is unacceptable. I do not think any of us on this side of the House would consider it to be acceptable and I do not think most Canadians think that it is acceptable.
As a final point of a more general nature, when we all go back to our ridings, I think we understand the way in which Canadians are responding to this attack on them by this government. One of the reasons for increased intolerance in our country, which I especially see when I go to the west-attacks on bilingualism and multicultur-alism on other parts of the country-is that people are fed up with being attacked by their government when they feel that their government should be helping them rather than kicking them.
The government just has to accept the responsibility for what it is doing to this country due to financial burdens being placed on the provinces with the increased cuts to health care funding and post-secondary education funding. It also has to accept the responsibility for the mood that it is putting this country in.


Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the hon. member opposite and thank him for his answer to my previous question.
Madam Speaker, earlier today we heard the hon. member for the electoral district of Cambridge, if I am not mistaken, asking other members whether.


René John Soetens: The riding of Ontario.


Don Boudria: Oh, the riding of Ontario, excuse me. In his speech, the hon. member asked the rest of us whether we were aware of the fact that his constituents'

April 23, 1990
Adjournment Debate
money was being used, for instance, to help provinces like Prince Edward Island.
I felt that coming from a member of this House, such words were alarming, because in my view, Madam Speaker, we must be more generous as Canadians. We must try, as much as possible, to have programs for helping the less advantaged parts of our country.
Of course, these regional development programs for less advantaged areas should not be seen as they are seen by some hon. members as being funded with money taken out of the pockets of their constituents. I don't think that is the Canadian way.
I would like to ask the hon. member whether he has the same reaction to these words which were criticised earlier by another parliamentarian, words which I remember very well because I don't think they contribute to Canadian unity, especially at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The hon. member has about 30 seconds left.


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I just have two brief comments. I would note just in passing that prior to 1982, when my province's government was a New Democratic government, there were not deficits in Saskatchewan. Indeed, Saskatchewan was then a "have" province. Since 1982, with a Conservative government, it has had deficits and has become a "have not" province. So, it is not the case that we would want to receive funds from other parts of the country, but that we have had a government which has forced us to do so.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Ralph Ferguson: Madam Speaker, on March 20 I asked the Minister of Agriculture if there would be financial assistance for Canadian farmers to enable them to plant their crops this year, and when that assistance would be forthcoming.
The minister responded that the government was working on this issue and was working with the provinces to design a program and that hopefully it would be a targeted program. As yet, not one penny of aid has reached the producers and, more than a month later, we are starting into the planting season.
I acknowledge that the government has give a commitment for $500 million of aid for Canadian farmers, but only if this amount is matched by the provinces. I understand that about $250 million of this goes to Saskatchewan, $100 million to Manitoba, $50 million to Alberta, $50 million for special crops and then $50 million for the rest of Canada.
While I do not quarrel with the division of funds, I have to wonder, for example, how the province of Manitoba can match its $100 million allotment when the total agriculture budget for the province is only $85 million. Many Manitoba farmers desperately need this help, as do farmers in other provinces.
I also have to wonder just how much good the $250 million is going to be to the Saskatchewan farmers, even if it is matched by the province, because the total of $500 million would mean $10 per acre planted in the coming season. We sincerely hope the recipients of this aid will be considered on a county-by-county basis and not on a basis that requires total townships or rural municipalities to be affected.
I have to remind the government that during the 1988 drought assistance program there were long waits for cheques and a lot of appeals. The farmers need this money now in order to purchase their crop input requirements. As I indicated earlier, planting has already started. Until the government announces what the assistance will be and shows how it is to be administered, the farmers will not even be able to get bridge financing pending the arrival of their assistance cheques.
I am fully aware that discussions are ongoing with the various provinces and producer groups and understand that some producer groups have suggested their payments be made through the Agricultural Stabilization Act and that the producer's sales records be used as the basis of those calculations. Such records, of course, are available from the various marketing boards or producer
April 23, 1990

organizations. I recognize that some of the producers who fed grain on the farm should also be compensated.
By comparison, it is totally unacceptable to Canadian farmers that producers in the United States receive half of their deficiency payments under their acreage allotment programs before they even plant their crops. In fact, they received this in the month of March. The other half of that payment will be made next year. In addition, they have a further advantage in that the input costs to the United States producers are 25 per cent less than those equivalent costs here in Canada. Consequently, our Canadian producers are at a distinct disadvantage, first, because they have no cash on hand to plant their crops and, second, their input cost are 25 per cent higher than those in the United States. Further delays simply cannot be tolerated.
I also like to place on the record that, while I do not disagree with the government's announcement of a few weeks ago to write down the debt of certain Caribbean countries due to their inability to repay, we have severe hardships here in Canada too. I respectfully ask the government to use Section ll(l)(e) of the Farm Credit Corporation Act and write down the debt load of some of our Canadian farmers who are being forced off their farms because this government has ignored the fact that these innocent victims of lower grain prices, which started to drop in the fall of 1984, need help too.
Under Section ll(l)(e) of that act, the government has the authority, under the objectives and powers of the act, to write down those loans, to make compositions, schemes of arrangements or to rewrite the mortgages itself.
Canada was built on the tradition of compassion and caring for the less fortunate. If there is ever a time to display some compassion and understanding, it is now. We have witnessed a tragedy after tragedy unfolding across this nation since last November. We have seen communities being devastated in Saskatchewan as people move away to seek work elsewhere. We have seen families being broken up and many people taking or attempting to take their own lives.
Adjournment Debate
I ask this government to acknowledge this and to take action to alleviate this worsening tragedy. If the government can write down debt for other countries, it should recognize the financial disaster unfolding in Canada and apply the same criteria here at home.


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the government does recognize what many Canadian farmers are going through a very tough and difficult time resulting from successive years of drought combined with uncertain prices and lingering debt.
I want to indicate as well that this government has responded in the past in many, many ways to help the agriculture industry of this country. We do not have to take a back seat to any country in the world in the support that we have given to our various sectors of agriculture.
When the Ministers of Agriculture met in Ottawa on March 29 and 30, the farm financial situation was the priority item on the agenda of that meeting. Unfortunately, in that short a time period the ministers could not come to an immediate agreement on how the federal government and the provinces could jointly address the problem. However, to send farmers and their creditors a clear signal of continuing support, the Minister of Agriculture announced a federal package of initiatives at the close of the ministers' meeting on March 30.
Under those initiatives the federal government will increase the flexibility of the farm debt review fund, which currently has $180 million available. The fund will be made more adaptable to current circumstances so that arrangements which farmers have worked out with the Farm Credit Corporation through the farm debt review process can be extended. That is responding to some of the special needs as well.
As well, the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds has asked the Canadian Wheat Board to implement procedures under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, which should encourage creditors to extend needed operating credit to producers. This initiative will help to provide farmers with the several billion dollars in operating credit that they need this spring.

April 23, 1990
Adjournment Debate
We are also planning to extend the $150 million federal-provincial national soil conservation program. The additional $10 million we are willing to commit is contingent on provincial participation as well.
Once again, this government is prepared to dig deep to provide an additional $500 million in income assistance to our farmers. We are asking provincial governments to help their farmers by matching that federal contribution which alone would provide $1 billion more to Canadian farmers in the coming crop year and bring 1990-91 farm income in line with the five-year average.
We are willing to work quickly with the provinces to design the best approach for delivering assistance to producers. This initiative must be consistent with the policy pillars that underpin our current national agrifood policy review, namely, it must be production neutral, it must be environmentally responsible and it must lead us into a transition to a comprehensive long-term safety net.
As I said before, the government knows these are difficult times for Canadian farmers, but these are also financially difficult times for governments. It is not easy for any level of government to dig deeper. This includes the federal government as it struggles to control the huge national debt. About 35 cents of every federal tax dollar goes to service the federal debt compared with an average of 12 cents of every provincial tax dollar to service provincial debts. Yet total federal spending on agriculture in 1988-89 was almost two and half times of all provincial governments combined.
Still the Government of Canada stands ready and willing to come to the aid of farmers again this year. We are ready for further discussions with the provinces so that we can design programs that will be as comprehensive and effective as possible.


FISHERIES
Coline M. Campbell: Madam Speaker, in answer to my question on April 9, 1990, concerning the government's aid package for the east coast fisheries, I was pleased to find that the Minister of Fisheries agreed with me when I asked him, as reported at page 10337 of Hansard:
Does the minister not think it would be wiser to be sure about the stocks and to be sure that we have fully developed all available species before we tell the people (on the east coast) that they must give up their life's work and the traditions of all those communities dependent on the fishery?
His answer in Hansard was one that I really agreed with. He said at page 10337:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree.
I was pleased because that seemed to signal, on the one hand, that the minister had been impressed by the arguments of so many fishermen in the southwestern end of Nova Scotia that these fishermen do not trust the department's stock assessment in the Scotia-Fundy region.
I was also pleased, on the other hand, that with his impending fisheries aid package he planned to greatly increase the department's participation in marketing the under-utilized species so that Atlantic Canadians could begin to reap the benefits of their total fish resource.
The reasons I have repeatedly asked both the minister and his predecessor to focus in the aid package for Nova Scotia on scientific evaluation and marketing are simple. First, to the best of my knowledge, there has never been any comprehensive stock assessment exercised in the Scotia-Fundy. Yes, research vessels have been sent out by the department, but for only a few weeks each year; two weeks on Brown's Bank and two weeks on George's Bank.
Local fishermen do not think this is enough to study the stocks. They think this because of what they are finding in the water. It does not bear out the department's pessimistic approach to stock evaluation. They will not go along with this with the exception of the haddock stocks which have been in a bad state since the early 1970s and are probably better today than they were then.
When I asked Dr. Leslie Harris in committee his opinion on the government's stock assessment on the Scotian shelf, he too felt that it was not good enough. The government has not yet applied the new "adapt model" to the Scotia-Fundy. This model has been used by the government to study the northern cod stocks since 1988 and, although it is not perfect, in the words of Dr. Harris, at least it would be a better evaluation than the hit and miss approach that the department is now taking.
April 23, 1990

Such an effort to evaluate the stocks might go some distance to repairing the non-existent credibility of the minister's department in this area, particularly in the Scotia-Fundy as it relates to stocks.
My second reason for being pleased was because the government has an equal responsibility to see to it that those affected by its poor management have a chance to profitably exploit the thousands of tonnes of so-called under-utilized species currently allocated to foreign boats within our 200-mile jurisdiction.
In this regard, the aid package should provide assistance to the fishermen and fish plant workers to go out after the under-utilized species and to market these species to the countries which come here to fish within our 200-mile jurisdiction and beyond. We have to put our money into establishing marketing of these under-utilized species. That means more money and considerably more money than the $1.9 million spent on all seafood promotion in Canada in 1989. This government will need to have in its aid package more money in that respect in order to fully develop on the east coast our under-utilized species and to compete with the foreigners who find it worth while to come here to fish, when we should be fishing.
I am not suggesting that this is a cure-all. I am just suggesting that we now have plants that are closed and boats tied up because they have been dependent on the three traditional stocks: cod, haddock and pollock. These plants and boats at present have no profitable alternative. I think one of the alternatives has to be with the under-utilized species and the markets that we could be searching for. At the same time that the minister brings out his aid package, I think the minister should listen to the fishermen and institute a uniform mesh size for not only the inshore but the offshore-those large, over 100-foot boats that are presently fishing and do not have any restriction on mesh size, and the foreigners who are fishing within our 200-mile limit who have no restriction on mesh size.
This regulation alone, if you listen to the inshore fishermen as to a mesh size, would probably conserve more fish than anything the minister could do in his aid package. I say that because in the last two weeks he has allowed the inshore 20,000 pounds of fish for three weeks, and he has allowed them to take it in cod,
Adjournment Debate
haddock or pollock. This means that they will go after the best fish and continue to dump. Had there been a mesh size for both the offshore-inshore foreigners, we would not have the dumping that is going on.
In closing, I asked my question in the spirit of offering advice that I thought would help the minister deal with the current crisis in a way that will lead to a positive solution and a healthy fishery for all. I do not like to see the negative approach which we have seen in the last few days which says that the minister criticizes the Atlantic Canadians for using the fishery, a renewable resource, as a point of entry into the unemployment insurance program. The fishery has been very profitable on the east cost. It is in a down period right now. We have alternatives. They are not to take away from the communities and the people who depend on the fisheries in those communities in the way that we heard from this minister last week.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, this government is committed to an Atlantic fishery industry which is viable, productive and contributes significantly to the benefit of Atlantic Canadians. We recognize the importance of Canadians using our resources to the benefit of Canadians. Under-utilized species need to be utilized where they can. Sound conservation and management practices are the foundation on which all of this is built. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will soon be announcing a program for the Atlantic fisheries that will address current problems and permit us to move into ensuring a long-term viable industry.
Last year the government established an independent inquiry into the scientific and management aspects of the northern cod stocks following evidence of lower than anticipated growth in the biomass. The appointed panel examined data used in assessing and forecasting catches, the methodologies used in Canada and other countries, and the calculations leading to the 1989 assessment. The report by the Independent Review of the State of the Northern Cod Stock makes several recommendations on improving estimates of stocks, improving scientific research and expanding relevant technologies in the annual assessment process and in the management activities.
Similarly, the Scotia-Fundy Groundfish Task Force addressed a broad range of issues relating to the effec-

April 23, 1990
Adjournment Debate
tiveness of resource management, fleet capacity and the impact of adjustment. The task force makes several recommendations aimed at improving scientific evaluation. The task force also recommended improved conservation practices through methods such as improved regulations regarding gear size. All of these recommendations have been and will be discussed with the industry. We have already begun to implement the recommendations from these two reports and others are being explored in detail.
Both inshore and offshore harvesting sectors stand to gain from increased market penetration that can be realized through greater exploitation of under-utilized species. Of course, the processing sector will also benefit.
A pool of under-utilized groundfish was established as part of the 1990 Atlantic Groundfish Plan in order to increase the utilization of under-utilized fish stocks for the benefit of both harvesting and processing sectors. In addition, funds are being spent on under-utilized species under the federal-provincial fisheries subsidiary agreements. Also the Atlantic Fisheries Development Program, a Fisheries and Oceans program, funds work on the development of under-utilized species that are being caught at the present time. Some companies have already received allocations for the development of under-utilized species, particularly silver hake and mackerel.
The hon. member will know that this government has taken substantial action in this important area.


WOMEN'S CENTRES
Dawn Black: Madam Speaker, I rise today because I was totally unsatisfied with the minister's response to one of my questions about women's centre funding.
Before launching into my reasons why the Secretary of State's reply was unsatisfactory, I want to urge all ministers on the priorities and planning committee to positively answer the letters faxed to them by women's centre supporters in Newfoundland. The ministers have been asked whether they support the reinstatement of core funding for women's centres. It is a simple request, and a simple answer will do, a simple yes or a simple no. I
urge them to respond "yes" and to send their reply to the Newfoundland women as soon as possible.
I implore this government to take positive action concerning the women's centres. Stop wasting money on unnecessary security, spend it on core funding to the women's centres. Do not blow millions on Canada Day fireworks and celebrations, spend that money on women's centres. Let us have 10 minutes less of fireworks and fund our women's centres.
I want to specifically address the Secretary of State's reply to my question on April 10. My question was: Would the minister reinstate core funding for the women's centres? My point was the Secretary of State could spend about $560,000 on extra security for his regional offices. The Secretary of State was paying to fly women from Yukon, Newfoundland, British Columbia and Nova Scotia to Montreal to meet with him about funding. Why not spend that money on core funding for women's centres and eliminate this problem altogether?
The Secretary of State is now spending about one third of the budget cuts on an attempt at political damage control. Women are angry. Women are demonstrating because the funding for essential services has been cut. These women are not a threat. They are not violent women. They are simply protesting in the ways available to them, as citizens of a democratic country, their disagreement with this government's approach. Reinstate that funding and the Secretary of State would not need to hire extra security guards.
The minister did not bother to think about the impact of extra security on the Secretary of State's regional offices. Those offices also deal with citizenship applications for new Canadians. What are refugees to think? Refugees who may have escaped from police states, only to apply for citizenship in Canada, find locked doors and swarms of security guards preventing them from entering public offices. Secretary of State offices are public buildings. The minister should know that something is deeply wrong when he decides that he must lock the offices from the public-the ones who pay for these offices.
The Secretary of State did not respond to my question on April 10. He simply attempted to turn it around and ask me if I thought he should not be meeting with women from the women's centres. Well he would not have to waste half a million dollars on security and on flying people around the country if he would simply
April 23, 1990

reinstate the core funding. He just did not have an adequate answer to my question.
The women from the centres just want their funding back so that they can continue to provide the information, referral and the counselling services that are essential to their communities and to the women in those communities.
I have spoken out many times, both here in the House and outside on the issue of funding for women's centres. On the particular day in question, busloads of women from Quebec came here to lobby for their women's centres. My colleague, the member for Chambly, Quebec, shared the question with me that day on women's funding. He is also very concerned about the abdication of federal responsibility toward women's centres as are all New Democrats. He mentioned that 39 out of the 75 centres completely cut off core funding are Quebec women centres. That is more than half the women centres cut. He questioned the Secretary of State's press secretary for saying that the federal cut had "a beneficial effect" on Quebec women's centres.
The press secretary tried to make it sound like Quebec's decision to increase funding for women's centres happened as a result of the federal budget and these cuts. In fact, that decision was made last summer. The Quebec government has been counting on the federal government's core funding. The extra funding was to supplement, not to replace federal funding. The Quebec government official that we spoke to that morning said that the federal budget could not be called by any stretch of the imagination beneficial to women. The Quebec government has recognized the value and the necessity of women's centres. Obviously this federal government has not.
In my own province of British Columbia women's centres are closing their doors. They are shutting down. They cannot continue to operate without core funding. Ten women's centres in British Columbia have already had to close because of this Tory government. It seems that the word "Tory" has come to be synonymous with bad news for women in Canada.
In response to the question of the member for Chambly, the Secretary of State replied how pleasant his meetings were with the women involved. They would be a sight more pleasant if he would guarantee the core
Adjournment Debate
funding to women's centres. Again the Secretary of State appears to be a master of avoiding the question. He did not give the member for Chambly a reply to his specific question, nor did he give me a real response to my question. My question, as taken from Hansard of April 10, 1990, was:
Will the Secretary of State reinstate the core funding to women's
programming and will he do it today?.
Since the minister did not answer yes or no, I am anxious to hear from his representative today. Will women's centres, the ones which have been shut, be allowed to reopen? Will the core funding be reinstituted for women's programming? Will it be done today? Yes or no?


William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to respond to the hon. member's question of April 10 regarding a Secretary of State meeting with representatives from women's centres.
My hon. colleague was critical that the minister was spending money to bring women to Montreal for a meeting in light of the cuts the government has made to the core funding for women's centres.
I am sure that if the hon. member gave it some additional thought she would acknowledge that during these difficult times of financial restraint, communication between government and Canadians is of utmost importance.
By having representatives from several women's centres all together, a useful dialogue was able to take place between the minister, his officials and the concerned representatives of the women's centres.
The minister was realistic at the meeting. He did not pretend that he was about to give the women all the answers they wanted to hear. But it was an excellent opportunity for the women to voice their concerns. It was an equally good opportunity for the minister to explain the situation his department and the government find themselves in.
Although core funding to women's centres has been discontinued, the government did not take that decision lightly. It is part of the sacrifice that all Canadians are being asked to make in order to get our financial house in order.

April 23, 1990
Adjournment Debate
Reducing the deficit and controlling spending are absolutely essential if we hope to build a healthy and competitive economy, an economy which will enable us to implement social programs and support social vehicles such as women's centres.
Only that kind of economy can create a social climate that will nourish true equality for women and Canadians.
The funding reductions to the women's program have been a difficult decision to make but I ask my hon. colleague to remember that during this fiscal year the women's programs will support more than 500 projects.
As the minister and other government members have pointed out the women's centres are being encouraged to apply for project funding. The minister has assured
them that they will receive administrative funding for specific projects.
That is what the minister was able to explain to the women he met in Montreal. There was no illusion that everyone would go away fully satisfied, but communication is essential during these difficult times and an important exchange of ideas and opinions took place at that meeting.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.46 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 24, 1990