1990-05-28

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, recent days have seen a significant build-up in the number of troops and military equipment installed along the India-Pakistan border. There have been two wars in this region since 1947. Neither war has solved the political conflicts there, and fear is growing that the current situation may deteriorate into a new arms conflict.
We call upon the Government of Canada through External Affairs to communicate in forceful terms to New Delhi and Islamabad its view that assertions of political interest by national and state authorities be made only by peaceful and non-violent means.
Government initiatives to maintain order in and near Jammu and Kashmir must also be undertaken in a manner that ensures respect for human rights, international law and the goals of the UN Charter.
Mr. Speaker, all the world has an interest in a continued peace in this region.


CRIPPLED CHILDREN
Mr. John E. Cole (York- Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this time to relate a good-time story in this House. Fourteen years ago the Persechini run-wal-kathon started in Newmarket with about a dozen participants to raise funds for crippled children.
With Joe Persechini as the driving force, and Whipper Watson as the chairman, they have over the years raised more than $500,000.
Yesterday's event, dedicated to the Whipper, required more than 200 volunteers to organize, involved more than 2,200 participants completing the 10 kilometre run, and raised an additional $80,000 for crippled children.
Today, everyone involved, families with children in strollers, teens and seniors, may be a little tired and a little sore but they all deserve a special thanks for their dedication and effort.
Congratulations to Joe, Dave, Pam and everyone involved for a job well done on behalf of crippled children.


ARMENIA
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, today is the day when all people of good will should join with Armenians around the world in marking the tragic circumstances which have beset Armenian history, from the time of the genocide, to Azeri persecution, to the earthquake, right down to the events of the recent days where Armenians have been victimized by Soviet troops. On this anniversary of the establishment of the Independent Republic of Armenia, I call on President Gorbachev to find a way to respect and enhance the Armenian peoples of the Soviet Union, including those of Nagorno-Karabakh, who are separated from their community and should be able to rejoin it if they wish.
As difficult as it might be, glasnost and perestroika, whenever possible, should include the righting of old wrongs and historical injustices. The people of Armenia are justly aggrieved by the fate history has handed out to them so far. All necessary measures should be taken to lift the current blockage of Nagorno-Karabakh, Soviet troops now inside Nagorno-Karabakh should be stationed on its borders, all imprisoned leaders of the community should be freed, and the legislative and executive bodies of the region should be reinstated.

May 28, 1990


TRANSPORT
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Thursday evening and all day Saturday I was in Louvicourt where I met representatives of the independent truckers of Abitibi-Temiscamingue: Remi Veillette, from Amos; Michel Roy, from Val d'Or; Raymond Landry, from Taschereau; and the truckers themselves.
I was told about their demands, which mainly concern illegal cabotage; increasing cost per mile; the attitude of the sawmills who should consider local truckers first before hiring foreign truckers; excessively high logbook fines; and better monitoring of trucks at the border and on highways.
They also want the provincial government to set up a task force immediately to ensure their demands are taken seriously.
Saturday morning, after talks with the representatives and for the sake of the people and workers of Abitibi, the truckers decided to lift the Louvicourt roadblock.
Mr. Speaker, I think everyone should realize what an important role the trucking industry plays in our economy.


RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure we acknowledge the presence in Canada of UN Secretary General Javier Perez de Cuellar and of our government taking this opportunity to sign the Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, despite the fact that Canada signed the convention today, we have yet to ratify this important document.
In September, Canada will be co-hosting the World Summit for Children, the first summit ever to focus exclusively on children. The need is urgent. In the decade ahead, more than one 100 million children will die from common illnesses which can be inexpensively treated or prevented. As well, here at home, we have over 1 million children living in poverty, the second
highest rate of child poverty in the western world. With this record, ratification of the convention must occur quickly.
The World Summit for Children will highlight the Convention on the Rights of the Child, a standard by which all civilized nations will be judged. Canada must set the example at the summit. But how will Canada convince other nations to ratify a document that we are not prepared to ratify ourselves? Our children and the children around the world cannot wait. Our future depends on how we provide for our children today.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, we have made noticeable progress in restraining government spending. In fact, expenditure restraint has accounted for some 70 per cent of our deficit reduction efforts.
However, in tough economic times, we cannot afford to become complacent. We must continue our commitment to fiscal responsibility and good management.
I believe that the list of management initiatives announced December 15 by the President of the Treasury Board were steps in the right direction.
For example, one initiative called for an immediate 20 per cent reduction in the number of international trips made by the public sector.
Yet, I wonder whether we might go a little further and take an extra step. Might the government now consider extending a restriction to international travel expenses, not simply to the frequency of these trips?
It is my feeling that a proposal of this nature would demonstrate to all Canadians that good management and spending restraint continue to be top priorities of this government.


ROMANIA
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, last week, I returned from a visit to Romania as a member of a parliamentary delegation observing the first real election in that country in over 40 years
May 28, 1990

following the December revolution overthrowing the brutal dictator, Nicolai Ceausescu.
While there, my colleague from Winnipeg North Centre and I visited the Cernavoda nuclear reactor site where AECL has, since the early 1980s, been overseeing construction of two Candu reactors. It is clear that this project has involved the use of forced labour in appalling living conditions and a dangerous neglect of basic construction standards, including wells and concrete quality.
Neither AECL nor the Department of External Affairs took any effective steps to address these critical concerns. Now, the Romanian government is asking for more EDC funding. No funds should be advanced until there has been a full, independent assessment of the project which gives it a clean bill of health from the perspective of working conditions, as well as safety.
There must be a thorough parliamentary inquiry to determine what role AECL and the Department of External Affairs have played in turning a blind eye to this disastrous project as long as Ceausescu paid the bills each and every month.


MEECH LAKE ACCORD
Mr.   Maurice@: Mr. Speaker, as usual, this weekend I met a number of constituents in my riding, the riding of Lotbiniere. They said they were concerned about the failure of some provincial Premiers to understand that Quebecers already negotiated the Accord and made all possible concessions to reach an agreement in 1987.
My constituents also praised the wonderful job being done by our Prime Minister and wished him every success in his meetings with his provincial counterparts so that the Constitutional Accord can be ratified by June 23.
However, Mr. Speaker, we want to appeal to the premiers who have yet to give their support to honour the signatures of their predecessors and thus accept Quebec as part of the Canadian constitutional family.


MYANMAR
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale -High Park):: Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, we were witness to a truly astonishing event, a seemingly democratic outcome to elections in a country whose government has been called Asia's most repressive regime.
Myanmar, formerly known as Burma, held its first multi-party elections in over 30 years. A country rich in resources and enterprise under a socialist regime, Myanmar became one of the world's least developed countries.
In September 1988 a military government seized power after a brutal crushing of a country-wide pro-democracy movement. In the 20 months since then the government has imprisoned and intimidated political opponents and has in general gained a reputation as one of the world's worse human rights violators.
We urge the Myanmaran government to respect the will of the people and hand over power to the new civilian government as soon as possible, so that for the first time in a very long time, the Myanmarans can get on with the business of salvaging what is left of a rich and beautiful country.


ARMENIA
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, today, the seventy-second anniversary of Armenia's independence is being celebrated throughout the world.
We are greatly honoured today in Ottawa by the presence of His Holiness Karekim H, Catholicos of the Armenian Apostolic Church of the Holy See of Cilicia. We wish him a cordial welcome and want to assure him of our prayers.
This people whose history has been one of tragedy and disruption has remained faithful to its culture, language and religion.
This evening, there will be a reception in the Railway Room from 5 to 7 p.m, during which His Holiness Catholicos Karekim II and the executive of the National

May 28, 1990
Oral Questions
Armenian Committee of Canada will receive all members of the House of Commons and the Senate who would like to meet His Holiness.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, I have a question for whoever is acting as Prime Minister today.
The Prime Minister concluded this morning a series of meetings with all the provincial premiers on the matter of our present constitutional impasse. I would like to ask the acting Prime Minister whether the Prime Minister has found the basis in these discussions for a solution to this constitutional impasse and whether, in particular, as a result of these discussions he will now be calling an early First Ministers' Conference.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had the opportunity over the weekend and this morning to meet with each of the premiers of Canada in an individual meeting. The discussions were productive and useful.
There still remains more discussion to occur. More needs to be done before we think it would be productive to convene the first ministers here. Those discussions are continuing.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs who is acting as Prime Minister today.
The Prime Minister is certainly aware, I am sure, of the requirement in Manitoba for public hearings in order to make a decision on any solution to the constitutional impasse, and Newfoundland has a requirement with respect to holding a referendum for that purpose.
I would like to ask whether the Prime Minister believes that there is enough time to put into effect any solution that will be reached to the constitutional impasse, bearing in mind the requirements of Manitoba and Newfoundland and the fast approaching date of June 23.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is yes.
Obviously there is not a lot of time. The hon. Leader of the Opposition asked the question whether the Prime Minister believes there is enough time. Assuming that there is the will to agree and assuming that that will to agree exists, we believe that an agreement can be achieved within the timeframe that is known to the House.
I repeat that while the discussions over the weekend were useful, there remains more to discuss and there are conversations that are continuing.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, my third question is still directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As we know, this morning the Prime Minister concluded a series of meetings with the provincial premiers. I wish the minister would tell us what the Prime Minister specifically intends to do now with the provincial premiers, to seek a solution to the Constitutional impasse by June 23. What is the next step? And why not have a First Ministers Conference, now?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the conversations that took place on the weekend were useful. We must continue the conversations that were initiated with the premiers of certain provinces, and try to find the basis for agreement. The federal government and the Prime Minister intend to pursue these discussions. For the time being, we do not think there is sufficient consensus among the First Ministers, among the eleven governments, to call a First Ministers Conference. However, we hope we will continue to make progress.
May 28, 1990


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister for International Trade, I will pose my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The final report of the trade panel on Canadian lobster exports to the U.S. has confirmed what fishermen and industry feared: Canada lost again. The Mitchell bill raising the minimum size of live lobster Canada can export to the U.S., a bill which the Minister for International Trade himself has said was a trade distorting measure, will be allowed to stand as a result of this ruling.
Will the minister not now admit that the dispute settlement mechanism of the FTA has once again failed Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: No, of course not, Mr. Speaker. I would not admit that because it would be false; it would be wrong.
The matter that went before the panel was a matter which in Canada's view was a trade distorting mechanism. That was judged by the panel and, as in every case, one side is upheld and another is not upheld. Our view of that particular measure was not upheld.
As the hon. member knows, there is now a 90-day period within which it is is possible for the parties to work out agreements dealing with areas that were raised by the panel decision. That process is being pursued.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question which is to the same minister concerns those 90-day negotiations.
Will the government be insisting that the Mitchell amendment is still a trade-distorting measure and must be withdrawn? Failing that, will the minister commit today that his government will make no more concessions to the U.S. on the backs of Atlantic lobster fishermen?
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the government has not been making concessions of the kind described by the hon. member.
The discussions that will proceed now, following the decision by the panel, will have to do with negotiations between the parties relative to matters that were identified in the panel report.
Questions that are settled by the panel will be settled. Questions that are left open for negotiation will be negotiated.



Ms. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
In response to earlier questions by the Leader of the Opposition, I would like to pursue the topic further in that the Charest committee made all-party recommendations which were unanimous and were endorsed in this House. It is becoming clear, at least by the news accounts since we do not have any other information, that those recommendations do not seem to be a major part in the kinds of meetings the Prime Minister has recently held.
I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister today which parts of the Charest report are being discussed. Which elements of the Charest report are seen as being most important to address? Could he tell us, for example, whether the issues concerning aboriginal people and the north are on the agenda? What can the Acting Prime Minister tell us about what has happened to the recommendations of the Charest report in these discussions?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think all members of the House would agree that the work done by the Charest committee was extremely valuable work, both in terms of the agreements reached and of its place in the process of discussion.
We are now in a situation in which the Prime Minister of Canada met over the weekend with heads of the other governments who were party to the signature of the Meech Lake Accord. We are looking for areas in which we can find enough agreement for the 11 first ministers

May 28, 1990
Oral Questions
to agree again to sign the accord that was signed originally by the heads of government of the 10 provinces and the Government of Canada.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary questions.
The Charest report was intended to find some ground for a companion resolution, not to undermine the five principles that Quebec put forward but to find a common ground for a companion resolution that could go with Meech Lake to address some of the outstanding concerns in the rest of Canada.
Can the Acting Prime Minister tell us if a companion resolution is still on the table for discussion and exactly what elements would be in a companion resolution?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, not only is the House aware of the process that is under way now. The country is very much aware of that process.
The country knows that what has to be achieved now is the agreement of 11 first ministers to the Meech Lake Accord. That is what is being sought.
The discussions over the weekend were constructive. They did not narrow the area of disagreement sufficiently to allow us to proceed immediately with a First Ministers' Conference, but progress is being made, and progress is being made with respect to an approach that if we are successful will result once again in all 11 governments of Canada signing and approving the Meech Lake Accord.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the public is aware that there have been meetings behind closed doors with the premiers of the provinces. After these meetings the Prime Minister and the premiers came out and made a short statement. Members of the House and the public have some idea of what the positions are of the premiers of the province, but we do not have a clear idea of the position of the Prime Minister.
I ask the Acting Prime Minister to tell this House and to tell Canadians what is the negotiating position of the Prime Minister as one of the 11 first ministers?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the negotiating position of the Prime Minister is to secure the approval of the Meech
Lake Accord. That was his position when he chaired the meeting that negotiated that accord. He has not changed his position. He will continue to seek agreement to persuade three governments that have departed from the agreement signed in the name of their provinces to affix their own signatures to that accord.
There are other activities that have to occur during the days immediately ahead. Senator Murray, for example, will be visiting Newfoundland for discussions with Premier Wells of that province, and other discussions as might be necessary will occur. As the Prime Minister has indicated, when there is information that would be helpful to the process of negotiation to express to the House, it will certainly be expressed to the House.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Is it not time that Canadians were told what this government is up to in relation to talks among Canada, the United States, and Mexico on a North American trade agreement?
We have reports about the cabinet considering a paper, reports about the Prime Minister holding discussions with the Mexican President, and reports from Mexican diplomats that invitations will be offered on June 9.
Is this government going to involve this country once again in major trade talks without any mandate at all from this Parliament or from the Canadian people? Is it not time this government came clean and told Canadians what is going on?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what is going on is that there has been an interest expressed by the Government of Mexico in discussions of some kind of trading arrangement with the Government of the United States. That matter is being discussed between those two governments.
The Prime Minister of Canada has expressed some several weeks ago in this House when the matter was first publicised his admiration of the economic perform-
May 28, 1990

ance of the Government of Mexico, and of their willingness-


Mr. Barrett:: Nonsense! That's not what the minister was saying.


Charles Joseph Clark: Perhaps if the former premier of British Columbia has a question that he would like to raise he could stand in his place and raise it, or he could perhaps arrange for a microphone that he could affix to his chest-


David Barrett: That's not what the minister was saying.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the right hon. minister could answer the question.


Charles Joseph Clark: To return to the very reasonable question that was put by my colleague for Winnipeg South Centre, that is what is going on between-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is not every day that you get to be acting prime minister.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: As has been indicated in the House before, we will be watching discussions that might or might not evolve between the United States and Mexico to see if Canadian interests are affected. If it appears that Canadian interests might be affected, then we will consider what action it would be appropriate for the Government of Canada to take.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I will just say to the right hon. minister that this is the second time he has had an opportunity to be an acting prime minister.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I want to get a very specific commitment from this minister on behalf of the government.
We want to have the assurance that this government will not commit Canada to any involvement in these discussions or negotiations until Parliament has had an opportunity to hold public hearings, have a public debate in this House and a mandate from this Parliament, if they so desire. Can we get that commitment today?
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, for some the opportunity to be an acting prime minister never comes.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We will certainly keep the House of Commons advised of any decisions that we think would be in the interests of the country to pursue with regard to any trade negotiations.
The hon. member will know better than most that when a Liberal government was in office and Canada entered into the GATT, that arrangement was carried out in absolute secrecy. The House was never told. There were not public hearings, there was not debate.
We followed a very different arrangement with regard to the free trade agreement.
If-and I underline "if "-a time arrives when we think that it might be useful to look at other kinds of trading arrangements, naturally there will be the fullest consultation with the House.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mrs. Shirley Maheu (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Following the cuts for cultural groups and the elimination of subsidies for heritage language schools, the minister ordered a study to analyse the possibility of creating a new national race relations network.
Can the minister explain the need for a new network to us? Is he afraid to hear criticisms from democratically elected community groups?


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of State (Multiculturalism and Citizenship)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased today that we have been entertaining the ethnocultural lobby day and an opportunity to speak firsthand with some of the leaders of the community.

May 28, 1990
Oral Questions
The minister has been travelling the length and breadth of this country seeking information. One of the priorities of the department is race relations.
He has learned from his travels and the people he has met that there are people who wish to contribute in a very meaningful way to this discussion. Because of that, a network has formed from the grassroots, from the community. A report has been issued to the department, for which the minister if very grateful.


Shirley Maheu: Mr. Speaker, "entertaining"! What an interesting word. The minister travels a lot but does not hear very much.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Shirley Maheu: The name of a former assistant to the minister, Ben Teitelbaum, was associated with a new task force on race relations that the minister established in Montreal. Is the minister trying to replace ethno-cultural groups with old friends and political employees?


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, the issue of race relations and racial discrimination in Canada is one of serious concern to each of us. When we have individuals reaching out to be partners with this issue, we welcome that. Not only is this loose network of grassroots individuals and organizations coming forth to assist in this issue, we are also reaching out to the chiefs of police on this issue. We are also in a contract with the Canadian Labour Congress in order that we can do everything we possibly can to eradicate racism in Canada.


EMPLOYMENT EQUITY
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice.
The record of this government in employing only 2.9 per cent visible minorities, compared to 6 per cent in the general workforce, is abysmal. The worst offenders are the Department of Justice, Correctional Services of Canada, and the Department of External Affairs.
In the absence of the Minister of of State for Multiculturalism and Citizenship, I want to ask the Minister of Justice what action she intends to take to substantially increase the proportion of visible minority persons in the justice department?


Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Justice has an ongoing program to increase the representation of visible minorities among our workforce and it appears to be working very well. We think we can do better and we will do better.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the minister can praise that record when she has less than 2 per cent of visible minority people in her own department.
One of the worst examples of legislated racism in Canadian history was the Chinese head tax and the Chinese Exclusion Act. When will the government fulfil its promises to acknowledge these past injustices, while giving a very strong signal and a public message that racism in any form will not be tolerated in today's Canada?


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the comments of the member and her work in terms of assisting in stamping out racism.
We are doing everything we possibly can in terms of establishing the partnership within Canada in order that we can eradicate racism and we welcome the comments from the hon. member.


ROMANIA
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
On May 14, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources told this House that since the fall of Romanian dictator, Nicholae Ceausescu, there have been no military conscripts working at the Candu reactor site.
I have just returned from Romania where I had the opportunity to speak to several of these military conscripts. I can tell the House that, in fact, they are still working at the Candu site.
May 28, 1990

Given the fact that the minister seems to be totally uninformed about what is happening with AECL there, how could he possibly approve a $500 million loan extension for continuing this project?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the government has not made a decision on a request made by the Romanian government with respect to EDC or any financing for the completion of work at Cernavoda. I have explained that in the House previously.
I recognize that the hon. member and his colleague have just returned from Romania. I believe they were in Romania to observe the elections on May 20. My colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs and I have referred to that and both of us would be pleased, if our colleagues are willing, to sit down with them and to hear their views firsthand as to the conditions at Cema-voda.


David Walker: Mr
Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister. I thank him for his response because I believe that this requires the attention of the whole House.
If an agreement is reached with Romania, will the minister assure the House that conditions related to safety, to the workforce, and questions of human rights that have been raised here previously and not answered properly by the government, will be answered in any agreement, and that this agreement will be tabled in the House for discussion by all parties?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the member is willing to accept the offer made by my colleague and myself and I hope that the member for Burnaby-Kings-way will also will be able to join us in that meeting.
I want to make very clear to the hon. member that in any response there should not be any conclusions made on the EDC application.
Second, with respect to safety, this is the reason why I and others have been insisting that if there is any work resumption at Cernavoda we need control of it and that
Oral Questions
the safety aspects relative to AECL requirements, our signatories with the non-proliferation treaty, as well as our membership with the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna are met.
With respect to conditions in the workplace, we will obviously raise that as well and take a look at the changes that are necessary and the changes that are taking place within the Romanian society. I think he recognizes and I recognize that in those societies some issues relative to human rights are obviously different than the ones that he and I expect in Canada, but we are willing to discuss those as well.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Transport advised the House on March 22 that security in our airports is working and is working safely.
On May 25 the minister reaffirmed and said that "we would never compromise on safety".
In spite of these two assurances, on April 1 manned security guard stations at Montreal and Vancouver air control centres, the very nerve centres of our airports in Canada, were removed.
How can the minister reconcile the statements given on those two occasions with what is actually happening, and put into effect as of April 1 of this year?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my friend that the security arrangements at all airports are subject to ongoing review.
While I have no knowledge of the actual condition that my hon. friend speaks of, I will certainly undertake to review it. As a matter of fact, I have a briefing on airport security tomorrow morning and I will raise subject.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary question, let me just read from the memo I have from the Acting Director General who states: "I am aware of my security responsibilities and have directed that immediate action be initiated to ensure continuation of an adequate but reduced level of security in these air control centres".

May 28, 1990
Oral Questions
I will send a copy of this memo to the minister. How can we do this to the safety and security of our airports for the sake of saving just a few bucks in this area?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my hon. friend that when I visited the units that my hon. friend talks about, it certainly was not a matter of simply walking in. There were the security precautions that the airport personnel and the director of security felt were necessary.
As I said, I will certainly take this up with him and be prepared to report back to my friend.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the members' attention the presence in the gallery of Dr. The Honourable David Carter, Speaker of the Alberta Legislative Assembly and Chairman of the Second Commonwealth Parliamentary Seminar.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Acting Prime Minister. I am sure he is aware that the world's leading scientists have concluded that global warming has begun and that immediate cuts of more than 60 per cent are required for carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide and CFCs. All of those cuts are required to halt this dangerous process.
The call of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is that we should not wait but we should make those cuts immediately and the ministers in Bergen, including Canada's representative, agreed to take action following the Fridays' release of the IPCC. Will the Acting Prime Minister today commit Canada to at least what was adopted in Toronto, a 20 per cent reduction from 1988 levels of carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere from Canada by the year 2005?


Mr. Lee Clark (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to confirm to the House that the government and the majority of
nations participating together at the Bergen conference agreed, as a first step, that greenhouse gases should be stabilized from present levels by the year 2000.
I can also advise the member, as he and others know, that Canada has been a veiy important member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Our scientists have been playing a very leading role. We are looking forward to participating in the Geneva conference in November, at which time we will make known our commitment, our schedules, and our targets.
In the meantime, the Hon. Minister of the Environment today is in Halifax for the second of The Green Plan consultation meetings. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and I were in Winnipeg for the first meetings on Thursday and Friday of last week. We look forward to working in co-operation with citizens from across the country and provincial governments in ensuring that the targets and schedules, when in place, will have the support of Canadians. It will be a very significant step forward in leading to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Right Hon. Acting Prime Minister. I assume that Cabinet and the government have had a chance to think about the seriousness of global warming and the fact that conferences, one after another, have been calling for targets and timetables.
The Acting Prime Minister's government asked for time of the House and of the country until the IPCC reported. It reported on Friday and called for immediate cuts, not cuts in the year 2000, or 2005, but immediate cuts of 60 per cent of C02, N02, and CFCs.
Could the Acting Prime Minister tell us, is there going to be an announcement on targets, timetables, and schedules for these reductions, or does the government not take this global crisis seriously?


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed there will be targets and schedules. They will be announced in the House well in advance of the meeting in November in Geneva, at which this country together with many other countries, will put in place firm schedules and targets for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
May 28, 1990


TRANSPORT
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Last week, the independent truckers of Abitibi-Temis-camingue paralysed traffic on Highway 117 in Louvi-court, in order to let the governments and companies know their demands and to make the public aware of their problems.
I went to meet the truckers twice on the weekend. Our discussions were positive and constructive and they decided to lift the road blockade on Saturday afternoon.
My question is: can the minister tell us the latest developments in connection with these demonstrations in Quebec and whether he promises that the Government of Canada will take part in negotiations with the independent truckers of Abitibi-Temiscamingue and Quebec, and with the Government of Quebec, so that all together, they can go over the contentious points as soon as possible and assess what can be done?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I was asked to provide a representative to the provincial committee established by my provincial colleague, Mr. Elkas, and I shall do so.
The commitments I made to the owner-operators in Windsor will apply to all truckers throughout Canada. I shall meet Mr. Elkas in late June.


TRANSPORTATION SAFETY
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I asked the Minister of Transport whether the government was considering a reduction in flight inspections, training for air traffic controllers, and other questions. He said that my allegations were completely unfounded.
Well, here it is, Mr. Speaker, the document itself. It is a Transport Canada plan, as the document itself proclaims, to determine areas of savings required to meet budget restraints.
Oral Questions
Now that the minister can no longer deny the existence of the report, will he stand in his place and reject its recommendations?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Government of Canada and Transport Canada, I make no apologies for making an effort to save taxpayers' money.
If my hon. member would read the entire transcript of Friday's exchange, he would see that I said that we would not compromise safety. It does not mean that one cannot find savings in expenditures and at the same time not compromise safety.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that just on Friday the minister admitted that he had no knowledge of the report, and today he is interested in saving Canadian taxpayers' money.
An official at Transport Canada's air navigation system tells me that the minister will be making a decision on the report by the end of this week.
Will the minister come clean and tell us that he has seen the recommendations in the report and that he will not slash costs at the expense of safety, as this report suggests he do?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will have continual briefings all week. I certainly would not want to miss the briefing with this particular individual. If the hon. member could give me his name, I would be glad to take it up with him.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The minister stated that there is a 90-day period for discussion on the lobster fishing question. The minister also knows that during that 90-day period, one of the things that will not be changed is the Mitchell bill. That is firm for that 90-day period.
The lobster fishing season is now well under way. The lobster fishermen, who have had to suffer through abnormally low prices, are now faced with this restricted market.

May 28, 1990
Oral Questions
What is the government going to do to help these fishermen? What is the government going to do to give these fishermen some confidence that their government is concerned about them? Will the government please do something soon, such as a price stabilization plan? This group of people is waiting for the Government of Canada to act on their behalf.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as I think the hon. member knows, my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has already announced a program that, among other things, is designed to try to assist the marketing of Canadian lobsters overseas even more than has been done in the past.
We have encouraged the formation of the Canadian Atlantic Lobster Promotion Association for generic image and quality promotion. We intend to act in other ways that will help Canadian lobster fishermen find new and durable markets for their catch.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, the lobster fishermen are into the season now. They are faced with this restricted market.
Also, this marketing program that the minister mentions applies to New Brunswick and P.E.I. It does not apply to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. These two provinces are having a particularly difficult time right now.
At a time when the fishery in general is in difficulty, when the markets have been cut back, and when the prices have been low, why is the Government of Canada refusing to help these lobster fishermen?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as my previous answer indicated, we are not doing that; quite the contrary. We are faced with a situation in which we disagreed with the provisions that were being followed by the United States. We followed the options that were open to us. It happens that the panel that was established to hear this kind of matter ruled against us. There is a 90-day negotiating period that is now being followed.
In the meantime, my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, has announced a program that we think will be helpful to find new markets for Canadian lobster fishermen. We are pursuing actively actions that will help ensure new and durable markets for the
Canadian lobster fishermen in consultation with representatives of that industry.


CHILDREN S RIGHTS
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, in Canada there are 1.6 million children living below the poverty line. In Nova Scotia, not one child living on social assistance receives adequate food allowances to meet nutritional needs. In March, the government rejected a children's bill of rights.
Since the Prime Minister today signed the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, could the Acting Prime Minister tell Canadians just what his government's commitment is to adequate food, clothing, and shelter for children in Canada?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member finding an occasion to draw to the attention of the House of Commons the very important action taken today by the Prime Minister in signing the convention today on Canada's behalf.
The hon. member will know that, internationally and at home, the government has attached a very high priority, not only to the care of children, but also to the rights of children, as was indicated in this document.
She will know that among the actions that have been carried out internationally within the direct jurisdiction of the government have been a number of actions, for example, to contribute to the immunization of children against diseases. Prior to that program, those diseases had ravaged the lives of thousands of children in the world.
We are following similarly active programs at home to help Canadian children in need.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I think that the clawback on family allowances, the lack of a child care program from the government, the EPF transfer payments, and the cap on CAP-to name just a few-indicate just what a high priority the government puts on children's rights in Canada.
Will the Acting Prime Minister acknowledge that, in fact, signing conventions does not necessarily mean real action when it comes to the needs of Canadian children and would he tell us what he plans to do?
May 28, 1990


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me speak for this party and this government. When we sign international conventions, we intend to follow up on them, and we do.
I can understand that question coming from a member of the New Democratic Party, because the New Democratic Party often talks about the importance of signing international agreements, for example, relating to trade. Yet, when those international agreements are honoured and a finding is made against Canada, the New Democratic Party asks us to ignore our international commitments.
Ms Langan: Answer the question about children, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: If the House of Commons allowed me to use the word "hypocrisy" that is what I would apply to that kind of behaviour.


Mr. Speaker:: It does not. The hon. member for Ottawa West.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister.
Numerous reports and the government's own statistics show that if you are not white, male, and able-bodied, you do not have an equal chance to be hired, promoted, and fairly paid in the Public Service of Canada.
Now, with Public Service 2000, the government is planning a complete revamping of the Public Service in everything from staffing to front-line service and it is not paying attention to the issue of unemployment equity.
Why is the government going ahead with this major overhaul of the Public Service and not even listening to organizations, such as the Canadian Ethnocultural Council and others, who know what the problems are and how to fix them?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, the record of the government in improving representations within the Public Service of women and
Oral Questions
minorities is there and it is something all Canadians can be proud of. It is not as good as it should be. It is not as good as it is going to be. It is better than it was and we are making good progress.
As for Public Service 2000, I do not understand why the hon. member would be critical of this initiative which will help ensure that Canada has the kind of quality Public Service the country will need at the year 2000.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, if the minister honestly believes what he just said, it is appalling that he does not know the facts.
If you happen to be of a coloured skin, your chances of being hired in the Public Service of Canada are only 1 in 4, compared to an applicant whose skin is white. That is appalling. The government can turn a blind eye if it wants, but that would not be a wise approach.
Will the minister commit that the task forces of Public Service 2000 will not close out these people but immediately invite them in for their advice on how to fix the problems?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member was not implying that there is a built-in prejudice in the hiring process.
The Public Service that this government inherited had a very low percentage of minorities represented in it. We initiated a program and action to turn that around, and things are better than they were.
They are not as good as they should be, but it is improper-and I hope it is a mistaken tone on the member's part-to insinuate that somehow there is prejudice built in, a kind of prejudice that this government has put in deliberately. It is not there. There is certainly no deliberate action. We are taking all the action we can to overcome inertia and to ensure that the Public Service reflects the reality of this country.


GOODS AND SERVICES TAX
Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister.

May 28, 1990
Privilege
The Minister of Finance has said to this House many times that the GST will not be an administrative nightmare for small business. That is certainly not the view of the Federation of Independent Business, which is the voice of small business in this country.
Consider the plight of Petland, a Winnipeg company with seven stores. The president of the company tells me that there is no way the firm can meet the January 1 deadline because of the difficulties in buying equipment necessary for the GST. He also says that the cost of the changeover to the GST is prohibitive.
If this government will not listen to Canadians and scrap the tax, how can it go on ignoring the pleas of small business?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Privatization and Regulatory Affairs)):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business was widely consulted during the years preceding the introduction of the goods and services tax.
As a matter of fact, many of the changes that were made to facilitate small business was at its suggestion. The President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, John Bulloch, has not disagreed with the tax. He wants a national sales tax. He would support the GST if it was a national sales tax. He supports the principle of the tax. He has made that very clear.
We have been trying to negotiate an agreement with the provinces to get them to participate in a national sales tax system. I believe that will come about in the years to come.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is rising on a question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege more in sorrow than in anger. The situation was brought to my attention by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River.
He has given me a memorandum that was sent by an official in the Department of National Revenue. The form is headed "Revenue Canada". I have sent Your Honour a copy of it. I have also delivered one to the government House leader in order to assist him. I assume he will be responding to this question of privilege.
The memorandum reads as follows, and I quote from the first paragraph:
On January 1, 1991, the Government of Canada will replace the existing Federal Sales "fix with a new tax-the Goods and Services Tax (GST)-levied on the vast majority of goods and services consumed in Canada.
The memorandum is signed by one R. Lalonde, Chief, Registration. I presume he is one of the many tax police that the government has retained in order to enforce this tax.
In Your Honour's ruling of October 10, 1989, on a similar question of privilege raised by the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, who was then the Leader of the Opposition, Your Honour referred to the notice that had been published at that time. The notice read, and I quote from page 4457 of Hansard:
On January 1, 1991, Canada's Federal Sales Tax System will change. Please save this notice.
I need not read the rest of it.
Very briefly, Your Honour then said, as reported at page 4460 of Hansard:
In the present case, does the advertisement of the Department of Finance amount to a contempt of the House of Commons? The right hon. Leader of the Opposition argues that the advertisement in question is misleading in that it gives the general public the impression that this proposed change to the taxation system is a fait accompli and that Parliament has no role to play in examining and approving the changes. The effect of this may tend to diminish the authority of the House in the eyes of the public.
The words in the advertisement that was complained of last September and the words of this memorandum are one and the same. In other words, to quote Your Honour:
The effect of this may tend to diminish the authority of the House in the eyes of the public.
The ruling continues, as reported at page 4461 of Hansard, where Your Honour said:
However, I want the House to understand very clearly that if your Speaker ever has to consider a situation like this again, the Chair will not be as generous. This is a case which, in my opinion, should never
May 28, 1990

recur. I expect the Department of Finance and other departments to
study this ruling carefully and remind everyone within the Public
Service that we are a parliamentary democracy, not a so-called
executive democracy, nor a so-called administrative democracy.
Here we have a situation in which obviously the advice that Your Honour tendered to the Department of Finance has been ignored by the Department of National Revenue. This memorandum is clearly in contravention of the ruling that Your Honour handed down on this matter on October 10 last year.
It seems to me that officials in the department ought not to have said that this tax will be replaced. They ought to have said that it is proposed that it be replaced.
I submit that by using the words "will replace" these officials are in contempt of Parliament. The minister who is responsible to this House is in contempt of Parliament.
This matter ought to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. If Your Honour finds that you agree with me on this point, I will be pleased to move the appropriate motion.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, my friend, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, neglected to mention that between your first ruling on an advertisement respecting the GST and today's question of privilege respecting this letter from National Revenue to the Township of Red Lake, an important event occurred-this House passed the legislation.


Mr. Boudria:: Parliament hasn't.


Harvie Andre: I hear from the other side that Parliament has not-Parliament consisting of the Governor General, the Senate and the House of Commons.
I would remind hon. members of another point of order, when we asked the Chair in respect of some business vis-a-vis the Senate, the Chair quite accurately, quite properly and with no surprise, indicated that the Speaker of the House of Commons has no authority over the Senate, and presumably no authority over the Governor General.
What the Speaker has is authority over this House. How one can ask the Speaker to say the government is in contempt of this House when this House has passed the
Privilege
legislation is something upon which I think the hon. member should reflect.
More significantly-and I do appreciate the hon. member having sent over this notice to me during Question Period-I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reflect on your own experience and recognize that in fact it is standard practice, and has been for decades, for budgets to be presented, for the House to pass them generally by way of approval of a confidence motion, to have specific legislation flowing therefrom preceded by a Ways and Means Motion and then have it proceed through the system. The Department of National Revenue commences very frequently collecting the tax that very evening or the next day. That is what our system is based on.
The hon. member seems to have our system confused with the American system where in fact they do not commence collecting taxes until the bill has passed all the way through the system.
The hon. member was not here, but one of the first pieces of legislation the new government elected in 1984 was required to pass was legislation concerning income tax amendments from a budget brought in by the previous Liberal administration.
Such is the nature of our practices in this country that for the hon. member to now stand up and say that this is a question of privilege is, I am sure, as he recognizes it, stretching things quite a bit. There is no privilege here. It is simply prudent public servants gathering the necessary information so that they will be in a position to implement the tax when it comes into effect, as is being planned, on January 1, 1991.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the comments of the government House leader. I am sure that Mr. Speaker has noticed by now that his comments have little, if anything, to do with the argument put very well by my colleague from Kingston and the Islands.
First, I do not accept the explanation offered by the minister in his reply, that in fact this House has now dealt with the matter and that justifies the government going ahead with this kind of information.
Nevertheless, I want to draw to the Speaker's attention that this memo is dated April 23, 1990. The bill was passed in this House on May 4, 1990, which is after April

May 28, 1990
Routine Proceedings
23. Even if we were to accept the minister's argument, which I totally refute anyhow, it does not even make sense using his own criteria.
Notwithstanding any of that, this bill, if it has not passed both Houses of Parliament and been proclaimed, is not yet an act. If it is not act of Parliament, no one has any right to pretend that it is. You, Mr. Speaker, have indicated that to all of us before.
I am sorry to say that this government has not understood in the past the very worthwhile advice that Mr. Speaker gave. Not only that, the government still fails to do that even today.


Mr. Speaker:: I have looked carefully at the document complained of. I have listened to the argument. I will consider the matter and report back to the House very quickly.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by numerous residents of various cities in British Columbia who are opposed to the goods and services tax.
This petition was sent to the right hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. I am pleased to table it on his behalf and on behalf of the numerous Canadians who have signed it.
They indicate that having had the present manufacturers' sales tax increased from 9 per cent to 13.5 per cent under the Draconian tax policies of this government, they feel it is unfair that Canadians be saddled with the
additional burden of a tax on services, as proposed in the goods and services tax. They call upon Parliament to reject this unfair and discriminatory tax.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present another petition containing some 86 names, which I add to the thousands of names that I have brought before the House against this goods and services tax.
These people are from Hope, British Columbia, and from various places in the riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. They call on the government to bring in a fair tax and do away with this particular tax that the government is now proposing.
They not have given up hope that this government will see the sense of ending this tax and bring in fair tax.


[Stage Direction]
-Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk-
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 287 will be answered today.


Mr. Caccia: For each of the last ten years for which figures are available (a) were pieces of (i) unaddressed (ii) addressed advertising mail delivered by Canada Post and, if so, what number (b) were there revenues from each type of mail and, if so (i) what were they (ii) what percentage of total corporate revenue did each constitute (c) what was the cost of (i) a stamp for a piece of advertising mail (ii) a first-class stamp?


Harvie Andre: Please see attached.
80/81	81/82	82/83


[Stage Direction]
UNADDRESSED	1172	1217	1312ADDRESSED	842	729	661
[Stage Direction]
UNADDRESSED	59	67	8883/84	84/85	85/86	86/87	87/88	88/89 89/90 (4)1614	2007	2097	2079	1809	2048643	629	655	741	889	1017110	134	145	151	139	165
May 28, 1990
[Stage Direction]
Government Orders
80/81	81/82	82/83	83/84	84/85	85/86	86/87	87/88	88/89	89/90 (4)ADDRESSED	156	164	131	139	104	123	129	183	218	% OF TOTAL REVENUE	UNADDRESSED	3.9	4	3.9	4.6	5.4	5.3	5.1	4.4	4.8	ADDRESSED	10.2	9.8	5.8	5.8	4.2	4.5	4.3	5.8	6.4	COST OF A STAMP/PRICE (CENTS)	UNADDRESSED (2)	4	6	6	6.4	6.4	7.1	7.1	7.6	7.8	7.8ADDRESSED (3)	9	13	13	13	13	15	15	17.5	20	21FIRST CLASS STAMP	17	30	30	32	32	34	34	36	37	38(1)	BASED ON PUBLISHED ANNUAL REPORT.(2)	THE RATE REPRESENTS THE BASIC RATE AT A MINIMUM OF 50G AND WAS EFFECTIVE FOR MOST PART OF A
[Stage Direction]
(3)	THE RATE REPRESENTS THE NDG PRESORT RATE (MIN. WEIGHT OF 50G) AND WAS EFFECTIVE FOR MOST PART
[Stage Direction]
(4)	ACTUAL VOLUME AND REVENUE FIGURES ARE NOT YET AVAILABLE.
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Starred Question No. 275?
Because of the length of the response, I ask that this question be made an Order for Return. If that were the case, the return would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 275 be made an Order for Return?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
*
Mr. Fulton: 1. Do any public servants earn (a) up to $10,000 (b) $10,000 to $20,000 (c) $20,000 to $30,000 (d)$30,000 to $40,000 (e) $40,000 to $50,000 (f) more than $50,000 in excess of the basic salary paid to
MPs and, if so (i) what number (ii) what is the total number for each department?
2. What is the (a) total number of staff in each minister's office, including the Prime Minister's (b) salary range in each individual case?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-69, an act to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance.
[Stage Direction]
May 28, 1990
Government Orders SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: There are eight report stage motions set down on the Notice Paper in amendment to Bill C-69, an act to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures.
Motions Nos. 1 and 2, standing in the name of the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam, will not be selected as Motion No. 1 goes beyond the scope of the bill and Motion No. 2 imposes a charge upon the Crown. It attempts to increase the contributions payable.
I refer the hon. member to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773, paragraphs (1), (7) and (8).

Motion No. 3 is also set down by the Hon. Member from Mission-Coquitlam. It is beyond the scope of the clause and of the bill. The amendment also tries to impose a new condition on all federal-provincial agreements.

Motions Nos. 4 and 8 are acceptable. These motions, both to be moved by the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam, will be grouped for debate as they both affect the coming into force of the bill. They will be voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 5 and 7 standing in the name of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing cannot be selected. They are out of order as they attempt to amend sections of or add to the original or parent act.
In this connection I would like to refer hon. members to Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773, paragraph (8) which states as follows:
(8)(a) An amendment may not amend a statute which is not
before the committee.
(b) An amendment may not amend sections from the original Act unless they are specifically being amended in a clause of the bill before the committee.

Motion No. 6 will not be selected as in the Chair's view it will impose a charge on the treasury beyond that contemplated by the Crown in the Royal Recommendation that accompanied this bill on its introduction. Hon. members will find the practice set out in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773, paragraph 7.

To recapitulate, Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7 will not be selected.

Motions Nos. 4 and 8 will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.

I just want to add that I am very much aware as the Speaker that there was some considerable discussion with respect to some of these motions. They were very carefully looked into, not only by the table, but also by the Chair again this morning. While it may be a disappointment to the hon. member, I hope the hon. member will accept that the matter has been looked at very carefully. I know the hon. member will accept the ruling.
I will now propose Motions Nos. 4 and 8 to the House.


MEASURE TO AMEND
Joy Langan: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-69 be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 17 at page 2, the following:
"(3)(a) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, this section shall not come into force or effect until such time as the provinces as defined in subsections (1) and (2) are provided with one year's notice of the intent of the federal government with respect to payments to be made under the Canada Assistance Plan Act.
(b) For further clarity, the passage of this Act shall not be considered notice for the purposes of paragraph (a)."
Motion No. 8
That Bill C-69 be amended by adding immediately after line 15 at page 6 the following new clause:
"8. This Act shall come into force and effect on February 20, 1992."
She said: Madam Speaker, as much as we wanted to see our amendments go through, we do accept the ruling of the Chair and the spirit in which it is given. We are very pleased that the Chair was able to rule in favour and allow debate on Motions Nos. 4 and 8.
According to Section 8 of the Canada Assistance Plan Act, one year's notice must be given prior to the changing of the terms of the agreement between the province and the federal government.
The federal government, by introducing Bill C-69, is attempting to unilaterally change the terms of the agreement without prior notice or consultation with the affected provinces.
The act in fact is very clear and specific. It states: -where notice of intention to terminate an agreement is given in accordance with paragraphs (c) or (d), the agreement shall cease to be effective for any period after the day fixed in the notice or for any period after the expiration of one year from the day on which the notice is given, whichever is later.
Section 5 of the act states that the federal government will pay to the province 50 per cent of the cost to the
May 28, 1990

province, or through the province to the municipality where the latter administers social assistance programs, of social assistance programs as defined by the act.
This is a demand driven system in that expenditures are not discretionary. Expenditures must be made by the province to individuals deemed to be in need or likely to be in need. By limiting its participation to an increase of 5 per cent in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario the government is in fact not abiding by the terms of the agreement.
The federal government constitutionally is obliged to consult with the provinces prior to changing the terms of the agreement. Constitutional convention demands as much, and the act has made this requirement absolutely clear.
The provinces should in their planning have every right to expect that the federal government will continue to pay its share of costs under the Canada Assistance Plan unless they have agreed to change the terms of the agreement.
The federal government by acting unilaterally is in fact threatening the welfare of the poor. Single parents, children, the disabled and those needing special care will suffer and will do so because the federal government has removed support for their welfare.
These amendments make clear the responsibility of the federal government to consult with the provinces before changing the terms of the agreement that it has signed with the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.
The government by making this unilateral move is threatening the whole concept of co-operative federalism which has driven the fiscal relations between the provinces and the federal government for much of this century. One must ask why at a time of national turmoil the federal government is intent on driving the wedge of division on this issue even further.
As more than half of the poor in Canada live in the three provinces affected by Bill C-69, this measure cannot be seen simply as a restraint measure but as a fundamental change in the responsibility of the federal government for the welfare of Canadians, particularly our children, and for the redistribution of income in Canada. Therefore consultation is not only morally necessary but is in fact required by law.
Government Orders
We have all noted that the Government of the province of British Columbia has indeed taken this matter to the courts, and we are awaiting a decision.
We have also noted that the department is in fact doing its own study on the effectiveness of the Canada Assistance Plan, on its costs and projections. We find it passing strange that the government is rushing through this piece of legislation before that report is finished. We suspect, and the proof will be in the pudding when the report is tabled, that in fact the government does not want to be told prior to it passing this legislation that the Canada Assistance Plan and the impact on provinces is so important to Canadians that it should not be amended in the way the government is planning.
In British Columbia we find that we have a government that in fact is not providing social assistance payments at a level that would bring families above the poverty line. We find in British Columbia that we have increasingly dramatically fast growing food-in-the-schools programs put together not by the provincial government, but by teachers and parents who are concerned when they see children coming to school hungry, when they see them falling asleep at their desks at 10 o'clock, when they see them increasingly having behaviour problems because they are hungry. What we find is a government that is not even meeting poverty level standards of social assistance in this country.
Now we have the federal government buying into that heavy-handed attitude toward the poor. The federal government has bought into it by saying: "It's okay. We will put a cap on it and then you will only have to increase it by 5 per cent and you can get off the hook".
That is not good enough for the poor in British Columbia. That is not good enough for the poor in Alberta. It is not good enough for the poor in Ontario.
Every group in this country that works for and looks after the needs of children will tell you that children who are hungry, children who are malnourished are children who will not have the opportunity to be full participants in this society. They will not have the opportunity to continue on in school. They will not function well and are, indeed, far more likely to be ill.
The Acting Prime Minister less than an hour ago stated in this House that children and their welfare are a priority of the government. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister today signed a document ratifying the UN Declaration for the Rights of the Child, and that if it is the policy of this government that the education, clothing, housing and feeding of the children of Canada is a priority, then I urge that the government very seriously re-think the passage of this legislation. It should pass this amendment, which would give an extra

May 28, 1990
Government Orders
year to think about it, and withdraw this bill. This bill is the kind of legislation that flies in the face of the sanctimonious statements that have been made over and over again both in this House and out there in the real world by this government about how much it cares for children in Canada.
This legislation ensures that children in Canada are in fact not adequately funded. This legislation ensures that children in three provinces in particular do not enjoy the support of the federal government for programs pertaining to them. They do not enjoy the same support as children from the remaining seven provinces and the two territories.
What does that mean, Madam Speaker? Does that mean that the federal government cares less for the children of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia? Or does that mean that the federal government cares more for the children in the other provinces? Or does it mean that yet again we have legislation that has nothing to do with the care or welfare of children and nothing to do with caring about the poor in this country but has a whole lot to do with a neo-conservative program that is an intricate network of neo-conservative amendments and adjustments in the world of this government?
I suggest that this government plans very carefully this kind of legislation. I urge hon. members to support the motions and defeat Bill C-69, or have the government withdraw it because it does not meet the government's stated commitment to the children of Canada.


Hon. Pierre Blais (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak this afternoon to Bill C-69.1 would like to start by telling the hon. member who just spoke that I agree all members in this House should deplore the fact that there are still people in this country who live in poverty. I myself come from a rural part of this country, and I have seen the situation evolve in recent years. I believe, Madam Speaker, that situations that have gone on for years and years cannot be changed overnight. As in every situation, I think we must look at how these things develop and then deal with the cause of the problems we are facing.
When we talk about poverty in Canada, poverty may be caused by a number of problems, but more often it is the result of loss or lack of employment. One subject- and the Prime Minister has repeated this many times here in the House-that has come up time and time again in this House is the state of family income in this country. However, the best social measure this government has taken in the past years was to provide Canadians with millions of jobs. Since we came to power, I believe 1,600,000 jobs were created. A government's top social priority, its first strategy to fight poverty in a country should be to provide employment, because employment will restore a person's ability to earn a living wage.
I wish my NDP colleague would listen to me as carefully as I did to her. Perhaps she and her party would then be able to go beyond their hollow rhetoric and look at what has been done in recent years and where this government wants to take Canada, Madam Speaker. What we have done since 1984, since the Minister of Finance gave his economic message in November 1984, has been to give this country a sense of direction. We realized that despite constant efforts, our debt levels had reached gigantic proportions, Madam Speaker. And we all found this very, very disturbing and we still do. We are afraid of a public debt growing at such an unbridled rate because it makes it more difficult to maintain and pay for existing programs and makes us apprehensive about the future for our children and grandchildren. When taxpayers' money, whether from taxes or individual and corporate income tax, is used more and more just to pay the interest, anyone can understand that. Canadians understand it very well.
However, we face a situation that has often rightly been called the "nimby syndrome", not in my back yard, because people never want any cuts whatever made in areas that affect them. We have noticed that and, as a government, over the years, especially in the last budget, we have had to make cuts that we too find difficult. Do not think that it is much easier for a government to raise spending by 20 per cent as the government that preceded us did for years, to increase spending by over 10 per cent, with frightful inflation rates of up to 10 or 12 per cent, which is absolutely intolerable for a country. So obviously, Madam Speaker, it was difficult-If I had been here in government in 1980, I would have found it hard to
May 28, 1990

blame and criticize the provinces or Canadians for not controlling their spending when the government itself was unable to control its spending.
What we did, Madam Speaker, is simple. We began by cleaning our own house and, as we say back home, we began in front of the house and swept the porch. That is what we did.
We have kept the increase in our expenditures to a rate of 3.5 per cent over the past five years, and that is less than the inflation rate. By doing this we sent a very clear message to all Canadians, a message which read: "Reduce the rate of increase in your expenditures."
So, Madam Speaker, we find it difficult to accept or understand that some provinces get federal government transfers ranging from 20 to 46 per cent. When I say 20 per cent these are transfer payments which are included in provincial revenues, like 20 per cent in Ontario, 46 per cent in Newfoundland, and about 30 per cent in Quebec, if I am not mistaken.
So when the Quebec government unlocks the door on January 1, if I may put it that way, it knows for sure that close to one-third of its revenues will come through a federal cheque.
When Mr. Wells unlocks the door in St. John's on January 1, he knows exactly where nearly half of his budget will come from. He will get that income via a federal government cheque. Not bad at all.
I am not blaming anybody when I say that, Madam Speaker. Put simply, I am saying that not only the provinces but all other sectors as well, public and private alike, must take this as a signal from us. To a certain extent, Madam Speaker, we have just signaled the end of the school recess. It means we have capped our expenses at 3.5 per cent, so the provinces must reduce theirs, and the same thing goes for school boards, municipalities and Canadians generally. It is a clear signal to all Canadians, Madam Speaker.
Of course, we could analyse in detail the measures taken in the budget. Of course, we had to compromise on certain points. For example, it would probably have been unfair to penalize some provinces getting more from equalization and if we had done so, we could have been criticized for not maintaining a fair balance.
Government Orders
Madam Speaker, I think that the measures taken must be seen globally, as a whole. We wanted to ensure that the provinces which are the main beneficiaries of the equalization program continue to receive as much and we imposed on them an increase limit that is inferior to the one we imposed on richer provinces. This process has been accepted in the Canadian federation for many years and we maintained it in this budget.
Obviously, Madam Speaker, I think that the opposition amendments should be rejected because they all would just weaken or cancel the effect of this change.
The purpose of this change is to put the Canadian economy back on track, Madam Speaker. That is not easy, faced with a higher deficit, if we want to help Canadians maintain, as I said earlier, a standard of living and social and economic measures so that they can continue to prosper. Despite the fears raised by the crises we are going through in Canada, I continue to believe that Canada is still a relatively prosperous country by world standards, notwithstanding some well-known difficulties.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, since I think I have already gone a little beyond my allotted time, I would say that it is important for both the opposition and Canadians to support the measures we have taken. These measures simply ask Canadians to restrain their spending so that we can maintain the rate of prosperity we had over the past six years. The worst that could happen would be to find ourselves again in the spending-inflation spiral we had in the early 1980s. No one in this House would want to relive that period-as many, I would even say most, opposition members admit. The only thing is that they do not want to take action, difficult though it may be, to help the government get there.
So, Madam Speaker, I urge this House to support the bill as it was presented because I believe that it is good for Canadians.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as folows: the hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre-the Environment; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond-the Scotia Synfuels projet; the hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre-Agriculture.

May 28, 1990
Government Orders
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Young).


Mr. Douglas Young (Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, first of all, with reference to the two amendments proposed by the hon. member, I must say that we in the Liberal party are astonished that the New Democratic Party would even consider passing a bill that has the effect of freezing federal transfers to the provinces under established programs financing for the next two years and that would also put a 5 per cent ceiling, during the next two years, on federal transfers under the Canada Assistance Plan to Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, and that it would consider passing amendments like the one proposed in Motion No. 4, and I quote:
That Bill C-69 be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately
after line 17 at page 2 the following:
"(3) (a) Notwithstanding anything in this Act, this section shall not come into force or effect until such time as the provinces as defined in subsections (1) and (2) are provided with one year's notice of the intent of the federal government with respect to payments to be made under the Canada Assistance Plan Act.
Madam Speaker, I think it is deplorable that the New Democratic party should agree to let this bill come into force provided notice is given. We in the Liberal Party want to make it quite clear that we cannot support this amendment, because it would have the effect of telling Canadians that a year from now, after notice has been given, all of a sudden it would be acceptable to impose a freeze and reduce funding directed to Canadians, to the provinces, for medical care and post-secondary education.
Motion No. 8 says the following:
That Bill C-69 be amended by adding immediately after line 15 at
page 6 the following new clause:
"8. This Act shall come into force and effect on February 20, 1992."
Madam Speaker, we wish to inform our colleagues in the House that we do not accept this amendment and that we intend to vote against the bill, because we do not want it to come into force, not this year and not in January 1992. We must not fall into the government's trap and play a game that is disastrous today, that is unacceptable to Canadians today, and that in any event will be unacceptable a year or two from now because it would mean telling the provinces: "We are giving you notice, but there is no consultation, no consensus, and if
the provinces don't agree, but the government will go ahead just the same." In this respect, Madam Speaker, I can assure you that the Liberal opposition will vote against these two motions which we feel are really deplorable, considering the fact that Canadians appeared before committees of this House, before the Finance Committee, to tell us that it was totally unacceptable. These people included the poor, people involved in health care delivery services, academics, students, CEGEPs, community colleges, all these people told us it was unacceptable and we agree.
Madam Speaker, to stress the fact that we will vote not only against the two amendments proposed by our colleagues from the New Democratic party but also against this bill, I would like to quote the current Minister of Finance.
In 1982, the current Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) thought that the federal government should not reduce the deficit at the provinces' expense. Obviously, he was speaking as a member of parliament and probably also as a Canadian citizen. He said at the time that cutting back on EPF transfers:
-could have disastrous effects on the universities and on the colleges, on the hospital funding and on the operations 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 outside of the arena. [-[
This is what the hon. Minister of Finance said on March 24, 1982, when he was a private member of this House.
All these arguments against cut-backs such as those proposed in Bill C-69 were also raised by the hon. Prime Minister. To put things into context, we are talking about high education. The Prime Minister went back once again on his word since he had personally promised, as almost every Canadian knows, a high quality education for young people.
This is what he said to the Conservative general council on August 25, 1989. Madam Speaker, not too long ago the Prime Minister said this, and I quote:
Our government will support its share of the burden to provide Canadians with a high quality education that will enable them to meet international challenges.
Madam Speaker, enough is enough. When the Minister of Finance says one thing and proposes another, and when the Prime Minister of Canada promises a high quality education and puts forward measures that will have precisely the opposite effect, I think Canadians
May 28, 1990

realize we cannot approve this bill today or tomorrow for this year, 1991, or 1992.
Here is what the Minister of State for Finance was saying about this bill at the beginning of the month and I quote:
The deficit is a national problem requiring a national solution. In order to restore the finances of the country to good health, the provinces have to do their share, so that they will benefit from reduced inflation, lower interest rates and sustained economic growth.
I was listening to my hon. colleague the minister telling us today about the progress that has been made in this country. He mentioned job creation. Everyone agrees, Madam Speaker, that Canada's growth in the services sector has been quite phenomenal in the past few years. However, Canadian men and women working in that sector also know that wages, job security, working conditions and everything else are far from satisfactory. Those jobs generally pay less and are not very steady.
I would like to tell my friend the minister that this year the government's record regarding job creation is not as great as he would like us to believe. In the manufacturing sector, which was supposed to benefit from the Free Trade Agreement with the United States, 71,000 jobs were lost since January 1, 1990. That is to say that there are 71,000 fewer jobs in a sector of the Canadian economy where jobs have traditionally been steady and among the best paid.
It is very easy to understand, Madam Speaker. The Minister told us he was supporting this bill because the deficit was a serious issue. The national debt, as we know, has more than doubled since this government came to power in 1984. Our friends opposite often blame the previous Liberal government, Madam Speaker, for having left the country in shambles five or six years ago. But how does the minister explain the current high interest rate situation? Some 17 months ago, in January 1988, the interest rate in this country, as set by the Bank of Canada, was 8.63 per cent. That was three and half years after this Tory government came to power. Madam Speaker, these people claimed that they knew how to manage the economy, how to govern Canada and put it to work. The interest rate today has reached 14.05 per cent. Now, let us leave out the 1979-80 period and the Liberal blunders which resulted in well-publicized bankruptcies and job losses. Everybody can understand that.
Government Orders
All the other industrialized nations were faced with the same phenomenon as Canada, and nobody can approve of that period because of the problems inflicted on all Canadians.
Madam Speaker, let us deal with the facts as they exist under this Tory government. On January 1, 1988, the interest rate was 8.63 per cent. After 17 months of good monetary and financial management, of job creation and all that, we faced, a few weeks ago an interest rate of 14.05 per cent, as set by the Bank of Canada. Who is responsible for this problem?
Madam Speaker, the amendments proposed by my NDP colleagues clearly reveal the government's irresponsibility in introducing such an unacceptable bill. We intend to vote against the amendments, and then against Bill C-69 when it comes up in the House for third reading.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am glad to see that a minister has finally come into the House.
This is a major government bill. Bill C-69 deals with a major budget item-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member knows very well this is not a point of order.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Saskatoon- Clark's Crossing.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Madam Speaker, I am happy to rise and discuss these amendments.
As we have heard, this is one of the most severe and deepest cuts to social programs that this government has made. It is a tax on funding for health care, post-secondary education and the Canada Assistance Plan in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.
We are faced with a bill that attacks the sick, students, and the poorest in our society. The government is attempting to reduce the deficit on the backs of the least advantaged in our society. Fully 70 per cent of the budget cuts in 1990 are to health and education programs and the Canada Assistance Plan. That is a record for which the government should be ashamed, and for which it will

May 28, 1990
Government Orders
pay the price the next time Canadians have an opportunity to mete out justice at the polls.
We are faced with a bill which not only makes these severe cuts about which I will talk a little later, but does so in a way which is contrary to previous arrangements made between the provinces and the federal government and contrary to the federal government's own legislation.
We have seen the province of British Columbia attack the bill from two points of view; one, because the federal government is breaking its agreements with the provinces, and second, through the cap on CAP to the provinces such as Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario which do not receive extra funding from the federal government, it attacks some Canadians but not all and, therefore, offends the equality provisions.
We have concerns voiced against this legislation because of its constitutionality and its unfairness, and because the federal government is not keeping its promises to the provinces.
The provinces have organized their affairs in accordance with the agreements, and with the federal government cutting back and ignoring those promises we see the end of an attempt to deal with federal-provincial relations in a co-operative way. We see the end of co-operative federalism. Instead, at a moment's notice, the federal government tells the provinces what its commitments will be rather than allow the provinces to plan ahead and prepare their social, health and post-secondary programs for the coming years.
We need to plan our commitments to the poorest in our society, to students, and to post-secondary education. We need to plan our ways of dealing with health problems. This unilateral action by the federal government prevents the provinces from planning into the future and making use of available dollars effectively and efficiently.
The Conservative members showed very little interest in the committee hearings. At best they tolerated witnesses and at most they asked one or two questions in which they showed very little interest. There was not one witness at the finance committee hearings on Bill C-69 who was supportive of the legislation. Every witness
criticised the legislation, pointing out the defects and problems to which it will give rise.
In the context of the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan, all the groups that work with the poorest in our society and do the best they can to support the poorest Canadians through their times of difficulty indicated that by placing a cap on CAP it will effectively put an end to reform of our social welfare system, and stop innovation and experimentation. In other words, it will put an end to efforts to spend social service funding more effectively and plan for the future. We are already seeing this in Ontario.
We heard from every witness who came to support effective funding for the health care system, for the post-secondary education system, and for effective funding for the Canada Assistance Plan, that this legislation in the name of restraint was short-sighted and would give rise to not only long-term economic and social costs, but to short term economic and social costs also. It would not serve the government's short-term or long-term purposes to save money but would add to the burden on our health care system. It would add to the burden on unemployment by not generating the sorts of skills and qualities needed for people to become effective participants in our economy.
We heard a great deal during and after the free trade debate about how we were scaring the Canadian public by pointing out there would be major cuts to health and social programs should the free trade agreement pass.
While it is not veiy comforting, it is clearly possible, and indeed proper, to say: "We told you so." The activities since the passage of the free trade agreement more than illustrate that we were right in pointing out its dangers to the agenda of the government on social programs.
This bill represents the largest single cut to social programs ever made. As I have indicated, the government's deficit-cutting measures here are almost exclusively based on cuts to social programs. That is in direct contravention of solemn promises made in 1988 prior to the election and, of course, in direct contravention to statements made by the government when we raised questions of attacks on social programs.
May 28, 1990

The fears that were expressed during the last election about the impact of the free trade agreement are coming to fruition and are being meted out on the poorest Canadians.
As my colleague for Mission-Coquitlam pointed out, this is not an economic measure. As the witnesses made quite clear at the hearings on Bill C-69, these are not economic measures. This is a philosophical commitment to cut back funding for post-secondary education and for services to the poorest in our society.
Before leaving this issue, I would be remiss not to point out that, while this is the third attempt by the Conservative government to cut funding to the provinces for health care and post-secondary education, the Liberals, when in power, also made cuts to those areas and, indeed, began most of the measures which the Conservative government is now pursuing. Both parties, of course, have a responsibility for the impact of those cuts in terms of over-burdened and inadequate health care facilities, and universities bursting at the seams and unable to provide the education that is needed. The witnesses from the university system-students, faculty, and university presidents-pointed out the enormous danger that that will result in to Canada's ability to compete in a world economy in the future.
In closing, I certainly do not support the amendments because neither I, nor my party, would want this legislation to pass. As I pointed out, it clearly is extremely dangerous and damaging legislation to both the social and economic fabric of the country. Rather, I do so because the commitment of the federal government under the Canada Assistance Plan is to negotiate with the provinces and to give the provinces one year's notice. Surely, it should be bound by its own rules and legislation, and should not blithely ignore commitments that it has made to the provinces which it has placed in legislation.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to speak this afternoon on this very important piece of legislation which has been much discussed in the House and other places.
I would like to be a little bit parochial this afternoon and speak about how this legislation affects my province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Government Orders
It would be helpful to put a couple of things on the record at the very beginning just so that members in the House and the people who follow this debate, either on television or by reading Hansard, know exactly what the context is here.
In Newfoundland and Labrador the three major sources of transfer payments are the Canada Assistance Plan, EPF, and equalization. Through those programs, in 1989 and 1990, the Government of Canada transferred to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador about $1.36 billion. As my hon. friend said earlier, that is about 46 per cent of the provincial budget. So, almost $1 of every $2 spent by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador comes from the taxpayers who pay their money to the Government of Canada. It is money that is not spent in other areas in federal programming but is given to the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, absolutely as it should be.
It is important to look at that number. It is about $1.36 billion for 1989-90 and for next year it will be $1.4 billion. That is an increase. The year after that, it will be $1.47 billion, another increase in funding that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador can spend on programs. That is a growth of about 4 per cent which is about inflation and which, by the way, will be higher than the growth in federal government program spending.
Despite all the gloom and doom we hear about cuts to this and cuts to that, we in fact have growth higher than that in federal government spending programs.
I mentioned that in Newfoundland and Labrador it was about 46 per cent. In provinces such as Ontario it accounts for about 20 per cent of total revenues. The people in Newfoundland and Labrador, on a per capita basis, receive in transfer payments almost $2,500 and next year it will $2,570 per person. In Ontario it is about $960. That is the context of what we are talking about and that is the difference I am referring to.
Let us talk about some of the programs individually. I would like to touch quickly on CAP. The Canada Assistance program, for my province and the province of my hon. friend opposite is unaffected. Fifty per cent of the eligible costs incurred by the provinces will be covered by the Government of Canada next year and the year after, as they were this year and last year. It is untouched. Yes, there is no question, three of the more able provinces, with the greatest resources and those best able to help, are being asked to make a contribution

May 28, 1990
Government Orders
so that their increases in the Canada Assistance Plan payments will not exceed 5 per cent.
That represents what some of us have been wanting to see for years, a moving away from blanket application of programs and from imposing one program on the country that does not suit the whole country. It is a recognition that some provinces have a greater capability to contribute than others and that some provinces continue to have greater needs than others.
When my colleagues from the Atlantic provinces saw the budget, they recognized that the government saw an opportunity not to demand universal solutions but to tailor the solution to the reality of the country, to reflect the ongoing generosity of the provinces that are able to pay-Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario. That is something of which we are very appreciative, something which we respect, and we are glad to see it continue. They must continue because our needs continue.
However, in trying to come grips with this huge debt that the people of Canada are carrying on their backs and in recognition that there has to be some restraint, those of us in the Atlantic provinces were not asked to contribute under the Canada Assistance Plan.
Established Programs Financing increased 6.3 per cent this year. Twenty billion dollars supposedly goes to health care and post-secondary education. EPF funding has not gone to post-secondary education and health care exclusively since 1977. The program was established to fund that, but the government of the day, in its wisdom, decided that that funding need not be tied to those special programs. Maybe that was the right decision.
In recognition of the deficit and the contribution to be made we have said that the per capita rates in EPF will be held at the 1989-90 level. They will continue to increase as the economy increases. They will continue to increase as the population increases. It is expected that those funds will increase 1 per cent next year. That should be recognized as the contribution that we in Atlantic Canada make.
I would like to talk about post-secondary education. The contributions of the Government of Canada and the taxpayers from across the country to Newfoundland and Labrador, are not limited to EPF. It is a little known fact that 25 per cent of what ACOA is spending in Newfoundland and Labrador is being spent through post-secondary educational institutions. Not only are we helping the economy and supporting our youth and those who are in the education system, we are also supporting the system itself.
The Canadian Jobs Strategy has a myriad of programs. One of the great beneficiaries of these programs, over and above the people it is targeted to help, are the post-secondary education institutions. They do the training.
In my riding of St. John's East, we have been able to help keep the vocational school on Bell Island vibrant through supporting a new program in that school. Across the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, we use those institutions to provide the training and the education in the job development program, but most particularly in job entry. We have seen tremendous programs developed under job entry and innovations. That money goes straight to those institutions. It keeps their programming going. It keeps people in work. It keeps faculty hired. It keeps buildings occupied and rooms busy. It provides the training in skill development that we so badly need to help develop our economy and to help develop the people who depend so much on that economy.
I want to talk briefly about equalization. Newfoundland and Labrador and, indeed, all of Atlantic Canada receive much more through equalization than we do through EPF, almost twice as much. That is expected to grow and obviously it will grow with the economy, again at about 4 per cent or a little more. That is more than the rate of growth in government programming. In that program, in the case of Newfoundland and Labrador, we see a little over $900 million each year, untouched by the budget. It continues to grow. When we hear about cutbacks, let us remember that we are not talking about cutbacks. We may be talking about less growth, but we are not talking about cutbacks.
These three programs provide 46 per cent of the Newfoundland and Labrador budget. That is not to mention transfer payments to individuals-pensions, salaries, unemployment insurance, family allowance and things such as that-which are so vital, so right, and so important.
May 28, 1990

Remember that this year the Newfoundland and Labrador government came in with a surplus in current account. It has money sitting in the bank. The governments of other Atlantic provinces have balanced their budgets. That is good. That is a great credit to them, but they parade around the country talking about the federal government stealing money from them.
This is an important piece of legislation. These amendments add absolutely nothing to it and I encourage all of my colleagues to move quickly to support this legislation so that we can continue to build a strong country and be able to respond to the needs of Newfoundland and Labrador, and all of Atlantic Canada.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Madam Speaker, I should like to speak mainly to the proposed amendments to Bill C-69. I support my colleague's motion because I can see that this legislative measure is dangerous and unacceptable. As a member from Quebec who realizes that this is going to take away some $4 billion and that on a number of occasions even our premier denounced this action on the part of another government that keeps saying it is favourable to Quebec, which is completely false, I believe Bill C-69 sets an unacceptable precedent. The fact is that this move on the part of the government has been referred to the courts, therefore the government measure is sub judice, yet they have the nerve to ask the House to adopt the bill. Decency alone commands that the House should at least wait for a court ruling. What will the court decide? That is very important because that is why I believe this bill is very dangerous.
We try to tell Canadians that federalism is profitable and we seek to sell federalism, yet we are about to reduce the responsibilities of the federal government by giving less money to provinces such as Alberta, Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec as well.
I will tell you something about a concept, and I am sure my colleague also understands the meaning of what is called a social contract. We have agreements with the federal government to the effect that it will provide us
Government Orders
with some kind of security, but quite the opposite is happening in this case. People in Quebec-I see you understand French. I am glad my colleagues understand French. The social contract means that we should get some kind of protection from the federal government. But we did not get that protection. The Conservative government members think this is funny. I can understand why they feel like laughing today, but I believe they are laughing at Quebecers because they think that the way to defend the interests of Quebec is to cut $4 billion off the payments to the province. I do not see it that way.
I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but this bill is unacceptable to Quebecers. Why? When I talk about the $4 billion we will lose in the first year, where will that loss be felt? Very simple, the loss will be felt in health services, particularly health services for the elderly.
In my riding a lot of that money for health services is spent on seniors. I know. I have lived in the riding of Saint-Hyacinthe, and the same thing happens in other ridings. As far as we Quebecers are concerned, the government is showing that federalism doesn't pay. It's obvious and it's too bad. It's too bad because-

Let me say this in English to make sure that my hon. colleagues on the other side, both French and English, understand.
I know why the Conservative party is becoming an endangered species across Canada. It is because Canadians believe that the bill before us, Bill C-69, is unjust and unfair. They believe that our government is the architect of our misery in the sense of high interest rates, in the sense of free trade which, as we say in French-

-never deliver the goods. Excuse me, Madam Speaker, I heard some noises on the other side, among the Tories. I am sure hon. members will agree that even the media will tell them that free trade has not delivered the goods and that today, according to this government, $4 billion is to be cut from funding earmarked for Quebecers because the government needs this money to pay off the deficit.

May 28, 1990
Government Orders
Madam Speaker, I say that if we need this money because of the deficit, we should ask ourselves: "Are there other ways to get this money?"


Mr. Blenkarn:: Raise taxes.


Philip Edmonston: I hear some more noises from the other side that we should raise taxes. I don't think so. I think we should cut government spending. We have to. The federal government's expenditures can be cut in several places.
However, Madam Speaker, in concluding, I want to say that this is a bill the NDP, at this stage, wants to put on hold by proposing amendments. We want to wait one year. Otherwise we want to kill the bill outright because it is against the interests of Canadians and especially against the interests of Quebecers.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the chance to speak in the House today on Bill C-69, an act to amend certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures. It may be more reasonable to say that it is an act to implement regressive measures against the people of Canada by the Progressive Conservative government. Let us take a look at what Bill C-69 is and does.
We talk about how legislation and various programs in this country impact on people. It is sometimes good but, with the Conservative government, it is usually bad. What is Bill C-69 and how does it work?
Bill C-69 attempts to change the framework of sharing between the federal government and the provinces on post-secondary education, health and the Canada Assistance Plan, which provides general assistance to people in need. We are talking today about legislation to change the framework of what we have developed in this country to try to ensure that Canadians can enjoy the kind of services that we have come to expect.
As many of these programs have developed the federal government, with its often considerable taxing powers, has stated, in co-operation with the provinces, the objectives it wants to achieve. It has asked the provinces to join with it once it has passed the legislation to implement those changes.
Bill C-69 is bad news for Canada. It is bad news for Canadians from coast to coast to coast. Let us look at the themes of Bill C-69, the themes of the Progressive Conservative government. This bill attacks the poorest of the poor. It sentences those on social assistance to two years and more of increasing poverty. It threatens the already over-taxed child care system. It means no new subsidized spaces for child care.
It clearly sends conflicting messages to the people of Canada about this government's interest in working with the provinces to try to improve our health care, a system which is already one of the best in the world, and about maintaining post-secondary education so that Canada can compete in that global market about which my friends across the way always talk. This bill abandons poor people and makes a mockery of the words of the Prime Minister when he talked about making education his number one priority.
The member for St. John's East talks about what the impact of this legislation will be in his province, and others talk about Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Ontario, or other provinces, or the Territories. People come into our offices saying that they are having trouble meeting their bills at the end of the month and asking what government can do to help, or what form of help they are getting now from government. It is legislation like this that changes the framework and impacts upon the people with whom we have come to work so closely in our riding offices who need the help so dearly. This government is avoiding the mandate that it has been given to help those people.
Let us take a look at what the accumulated impact of the cuts in this legislation will be in my province alone. Make no mistake, we are talking about cuts to post-secondary education and health care in Canada.
British Columbia is unique because we have a premier in British Columbia who has called for this kind of legislation. Yet, on the other hand, he has joined with two other provinces to challenge the unilateral movement by this government to cancel their agreements. At best, the premier of British Columbia is schizophrenic and really does not quite understand what is involved. Does he, as he said, want the federal government to cut back its spending and reduce its deficit? On the other hand, a minister of his own government is challenging this legislation.
May 28, 1990

You cannot have it both ways, Madam Speaker. The premier of British Columbia cannot have it both ways and he does not know which way he is going to have it. His actions are going to mean more damage to health care and post-secondary education in British Columbia than we have ever had before.
He has tried every party so far. He has been a Liberal.


Mr. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: He is a Liberal.


Brian L. Gardiner: He is a Liberal. He has been a Socred. He is now. I do not know how he votes federally. He is suing his friends in the federal government.


Robert Evans Skelly: He didn't vote in the last election.


Brian L. Gardiner: My friend says he did not even vote in the last federal election and who knows what further we can expect. What will the impact be? The impact of this legislation is going to be over $3 billion worth of cuts to British Columbians. It makes a mockery of the attempts to develop the kind of post-secondary education system we need. We are hoping that legislation will be tabled this week in the provincial legislature to establish a university in Prince George to serve northern British Columbia. What kind of future does that university or other universities have when this government is cutting $3 billion from post-secondary education and health in this country?
I asked the Secretary of State questions about the block funding formulas that we have, which of course the Liberals support. I asked him to lay to rest the fears that we have had that funds from this government for education and health are spent paving highways in British Columbia. I asked whether he has done any studies on this and whether he can tell me that I am wrong. He did not answer the question. He said we had to trust him.
Canadians have found out what has happened when they place their trust in this government at the ballot box. We have seen an attack on the very programs that we have had to fight to develop in this country. They are being whittled away by the Conservatives, usually with the support of the Liberal party. I think we should make any effort that we can make with regard to Bill C-69 to see that those changes do not come about. All they ask for in the legislation is that the provinces be given notice about implementing changes. That was one particular part of the the previous legislation. It is incredible that we have the same kind of government. The Liberals brought in that measure in the first place. They are encouraged by this legislation. We have got to change it, stop it and ensure that we develop the kind of education
Government Orders
and health programs across this country that the legislation that we have brought in and supported will guarantee.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Calgary Southeast):: Madam Speaker, we are going to come back to reality for a minute after that speech.
I would like to point out what Bill C-69 is. It was introduced in the House of Commons on March 15, 1990. Its purpose is to implement key aspects of the expenditure control program affecting statutory programs proposed in the February 20, 1990, budget by finance minister Wilson. Combined with the restraint initiatives announced in December, 1989, this plan will reduce government spending by an estimated $3 billion in 1990-91 and by $3.8 billion in 1991-92. The federal deficit is projected to decline-


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member is about to make a scintillating contribution to the debate; I just wish some of his cabinet colleagues were here to listen to him. This is-


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member raised the same subject as a point of order earlier and was told that this is not a point of order. I would appreciate that we would continue with debate.


Lee Richardson: Madam Speaker, before I was so rudely interrupted by the lone Liberal in the House-the only one who sits here in the entire House, and he wants to rudely interrupt.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I was very polite.


Lee Richardson: As I was saying, the federal deficit is projected to decline from $30.5 billion in 1990 to $28.5 billion in 1990-91 and down to $26.8 billion in 1991-92.
This bill affects four programs: the Canada Assistance Plan, the Canadian Exploration Incentive Program, the Established Programs Financing Arrangement and the Public Utilities Income Tkx Transfer. First is a summary of the restraint initiatives.
One, the Canada Assistance Plan: The federal government pays provinces half the cost of eligible social assistance expenditures under the Canada Assistance

May 28, 1990
Government Orders
Plan. These transfers have grown from $4 billion in 1984-85 to $5.5 billion in 1990, an average increase of 6.7 per cent. The amendments do not affect provinces which receive federal equalization transfers, as my hon. friend from St. John's was saying earlier. The federal government will therefore continue to share half of all the eligible expenditures incurred in these provinces. For provinces not receiving equalization, the bill provides for a maximum 5 per cent annual growth of Canada Assistance Plan contributions for 1991 and 1992. These provinces, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, are in a better fiscal position than the federal government to finance expenditures beyond the 5 per cent rate. Implementation of this measure will provide for resumption of the present regime on April 1, 1992.
The second program affected is the Canadian Exploration Incentive Program, CEIP. The CEIP provides a contribution of 30 per cent of the cost of mineral, oil and gas exploration financed with flow-through share arrangements. It was introduced in 1988 following the sharp decline in the stock markets and the subsequent difficulty of raising capital. It was the only remaining subsidy to business that is demand driven and, hence, open-ended. The government costs in 1989-90 are expected to exceed $160 million. The program was cancelled effective February 19, 1990, but with grant filing provisions in respect of written agreements entered into prior to February 20, 1990.
A third, and perhaps least understood, is the Established Programs Financing. Established Programs Financing is the single largest transfer program to provinces and has grown from $14.5 billion in 1984-85 to almost $20 billion in 1989-90, an average annual increase of 6.3 per cent. Under Established Programs Financing, the federal government provides equal per capita financial assistance to all provinces, through the transfer of tax points and cash payments. Historically, these transfers were undertaken to assist provinces to carry out their responsibilities in respect of health care and postsecondary education. However, since 1977, provinces have been able to use these transfers according to their particular priorities, rather than in the more restrictive fashion required by previous cost-sharing arrangements. The bill will hold the per capita EPF transfer in 1991 and 1992 to its 1989-90 level. However, total EPF transfers
will continue to grow with the population increase of each province, or about 1 per cent nationally.
The bill provides for a resumption of EPF growth in 1992-93 at the rate of growth of GNP less three percentage points, which is consistent with the announcement in the April 1989 budget. The growth of the total Established Programs Financing transfer, beginning in 1992-93, will not fall below the rate of inflation. This change to EPF will have exactly the same per capita impact on all provinces and represents less than 1 per cent of provincial revenues in 1990-91. Low-income provinces will continue to benefit from the large and growing equalization transfers which have been exempted from the expenditure control plan.
The final program affected by these restraint measures is the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. This act provides for the transfer to provinces of 95 per cent of the eligible federal corporate income tax paid by investor-owned electric and gas utilities. Total payments to provinces under the program during 1990-91 and 1991-92 will not exceed the amount paid in 1989-90, that is, in each year. The provinces will share in the control level of the transfer in 1991 and 1992, in proportion to their eligible claims, as determined by the existing rules of the program.
For further clarity, I would like to explain in more detail the Canada Assistance Plan. The Canada Assistance Plan was introduced in 1966, over 24 years ago, to help provinces with the cost of providing social assistance and welfare services to people in need. At the same time, it was recognized that the provinces have jurisdiction in this area. The Canada Assistance Plan cost shares 50 per cent of eligible social assistance and welfare service costs. Under the terms of cost sharing, the provinces make the day-to-day decisions about the design and delivery of their individual programs.
For example, they set benefit levels, they decide who is eligible, all within the legislative and regulatory framework for eligible support and services under the Canada Assistance Plan. About two-thirds of the $5.5 billion that the federal government now transfers to the provinces under the Canada Assistance Plan is for general cash assistance; that is the monthly cash support for basic needs like food, shelter and clothing and other items of assistance. The other third goes to welfare services of various types, including day care, counselling, assessment, rehabilitation and other services such as homes
May 28, 1990

for special care or child welfare. While the federal government specifies the conditions for cost sharing, it is the provincial governments which are responsible for the design and delivery of programs to the public.
The budget measure continues to respect the provincial role in delivering and designing assistance and services to people in need. It also continues to assist provinces with the costs of providing that assistance. The budget measure protects the poor, equalization-receiving provinces from any change in the federal contributions. The budget measure applies only to three non-equalization receiving provinces. These three provinces, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, are fiscally strong and can therefore cope with a two-year restriction in the federal contribution under the Canada Assistance Plan. In those provinces, the federal government will continue to cost share Canada Assistance Program expenditures within a 5 per cent annual growth rate for each of the next two years, 1990-91 and 1991-92. We are not talking about cut-backs or, as the NDP says, "threatening the welfare of the poor". If a province does not increase expenditures by more than 5 per cent in each of the next two years, the ceiling will have no effect. For increases in expenditure above 5 per cent, the fiscally stronger provinces like Alberta are in a better position at this time to pay such costs.
The federal government's priority is to bring program expenditures in line with our capacity to afford them and to bring our deficit and debt down.
Some provinces are well placed to assist in this goal by absorbing a temporary limit on the growth in the federal contribution to them under the major federal transfers. The Canada Assistance Plan measure does this while still protecting the lower-income provinces.
I would like to conclude with a brief consideration of the effect on my province of Alberta of the proposed changes in Established Programs Financing.
The Established Programs Financing transfer to Alberta will be limited to the same per-person levels as 1989-90 for the next two fiscal years. Growth of transfers to Alberta under the Canada Assistance Plan will be limited by the 5 per cent cap on growth of these payments to non-equalization provinces. Alberta will
Government Orders
only be affected by this lid on CAP if the province chooses to increase spending under CAP by more than 5 per cent. If it does so, then it should bear the extra costs as it is obviously more able to afford them than the federal government.
Despite these limitations on transfer growth, transfers to Alberta under Established Programs Financing and the Canada Assistance Plan are expected to rise from $2.3 billion in 1989-90 to $2.4 billion and $2.45 billion in 1990-91 and 1991-92 respectively.
Federal support to Alberta is going to continue playing a strong role in the provincial fiscal picture. Major federal transfer programs make up 22 per cent of total Alberta revenues. In summary, on a per capita basis the federal transfers are expected to amount to $972 for each Alberta resident in 1990-91 and $979 for the subsequent fiscal year.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich -Gulf Islands):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice in opposition to the introduction of Bill C-69 and to support the amendments put forth by my hon. colleagues on the committee.
Bill C-69 reduces the Established Programs Financing. It puts a cap on the Canada Assistance Plan. It is a bad deal for Canada and a particularly bad deal for those so-called have provinces, British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario.
There is an interesting little twist in all of this because the premier of my province, Bill Vander Zalm, invited this very action. In an address to the Union of B.C. Municipalities meeting last September he stated: "If the federal government will cut back on its expenditures then we, similarly, will have to give, not only on equalization payments, but on transfer payments as well".
This is where B.C. is doubly punished, not only by the federal government but also by its own provincial government. Another little quirk in all this, Madam Speaker, is that now the attorney general of that same provincial government has moved to sue the Canadian federal government in the B.C. Court of Appeal. It is challenging this cut on a constitutional basis, reminding the Canadian government of its constitutional responsibilities to transfer on a fifty-fifty basis to provinces the cost of such programs for social policies.

May 28, 1990
Government Orders
The same provincial government that invited these cuts is now attempting to sue the government for doing what it asked it to do. One wonders why people laugh derisively at the Government of British Columbia. Well, here is an example of why. The only people who are not laughing are the people of British Columbia, because they are being doubly punished by the initiatives of these two governments.
Nineteen billion dollars is transferred annually to the provinces under these plans. Under Bill C-69 that will be cut by $7.3 billion between now and 1994-95. That is a sizeable reduction.
What has happened and is happening is that the government's deficit reduction measures are almost exclusively based on the cuts to social programs. I know the ears will perk up across the way, but it all fits in.
It talks about the plan under the free trade agreement, the same free trade agreement that the government promised to the people of Canada would not cut social programs. The free trade agreement is behind all of this. The effect of Bill C-69 will be to cut that $7.3 billion. The free trade agreement, in keeping with this, is the whole backdrop.
The government says that it is cutting to reduce the deficit. I think everyone is in favour of reducing the deficit. We have our own suggestions on how that should happen. It has to do with a reduction in interest rates. What is really happening is that the cloak behind the cuts to social programs is deficit reduction, but the justification is really to get the government off the backs of business so they can compete with American companies. That is the link to the free trade agreement.
The government promised that the poor, the sick, and the elderly would not be affected by the trade deal. We see just the opposite. What the government promised in the election of 1988 is not what is occurring now.
This government, in keeping with that, is also on a privatization kick. This is once again where British Columbia is being doubly punished, because the same dynamic is occurring in British Columbia.
The free trade agreement provides for the U.S. to have equal access for private health care management services. We have in my province right now a deplorable lack of health care services, where people are forced to go the United States to receive emergency open heart
surgery. This is the same government that invited these cuts to Established Programs Financing.
This reminds me of a quote from Oscar Wilde. I will paraphrase it. The government both in Ottawa and Victoria knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Under the Canada Assistance Plan the federal government is required to provide funds on a fifty-fifty cost-shared basis. We in my party believe that the tax system should be a redistributive mechanism. We are committed to that. That is one of the reasons we are who we are. We believe in national programs. We believe in them being equitably distributed across Canada.
In this current constitutional crisis we are experiencing, we are the party that is most upset at what is going on, because it is the national programs and the financing of those programs that are in jeopardy if our country should fall apart.
The member of the legislature for my riding is also the finance minister for British Columbia. He is the guy who is implementing the cuts. He is readjusting his budget because of cuts to the Established Programs Financing and the cap on CAP. It is interesting because of what his premier, his boss, had invited. It is now causing him no end of torment because he is seeing the effects of the invitation. That is British Columbia politics for you, Madam Speaker.
I have a button that I sometimes wear given to me by the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam. It says: "Has the world gone mad, or is this B.C.?" It is the whole mindset of the premier saying: "You must do this in the interest of deficit reduction". Then when the government does it, they say: "Wait a minute, we didn't really mean that", and when it is followed through, the provincial government sues the federal government. It is like a Monty Python show.
As I said, the only people who are not seeing the joke of it all are the people of British Columbia. I hope they have the courage to junk the Socred government along with its idea of deficit reduction and elect the New Democratic Party in the next provincial election. That would go a long way to serving the interests of British Columbians because we have a plan. We know how to operate an economy in a much more responsible manner than the Social Credit government. The New Democratic Party also knows how not to invite disaster on our

province, much like the premier of British Columbia has done.


Mr. Kempling:: Kick them out.


Lynn Hunter: Believe me, we are working very hard to do that very thing.
My hon. colleagues who have worked on the committee studying Bill C-69 have put forth some very worthwhile amendments based on our belief that the Government of Canada has to live up to its contractual and constitutional responsibilities by consulting with the provinces prior to any changes to the Canada Assistance Plan. I think it only makes sense when we are talking about the whole constitutional crisis we have now. A little consultation could have averted a lot of this.
We are not talking just about the Constitution. We are talking about the way the government should be structured and the way its members should be talking to one another.
In conclusion, British Columbia is being doubly punished both by the federal government and by the provincial government. I hope that at the provincial level they will turf the Socreds out in the next provincial election and I hope that at the federal level I hope they will do the same thing to this government.


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to stand here today and speak about Bill C-69, which was introduced in the House of Commons on March 15, 1990. The purpose of the bill is to implement key aspects of the expenditure control program affecting the statutory programs proposed in the February 20 budget by the finance minister.
The first thing I would like to talk about is the seriousness of the federal debt situation in relation to the provinces. One illustration of the seriousness of the federal deficit is the size of the federal debt charges in relation to those of the provinces.
For the fiscal year 1989-90, 35 cents of every revenue dollar collected by the federal government went to cover the cost of servicing the public debt. That left 65 cents for program spending before we got into adding to the deficit.
Government Orders
As a point of reference, back in 1968, the cost for servicing the debt was 12 cents of eveiy tax dollar, which left the then Trudeau government 88 cents to use on program spending.
By comparison, debt charges last year in Ontario were 11 cents for every dollar of revenue collected. In British Columbia it was about 4 cents. In Alberta it was 8 cents. In Quebec it was 18 cents. In Atlantic Canada, 15 cents out of every revenue dollar, about one-half the rate of the federal government, went to debt servicing.
Despite our very difficult fiscal situation, the federal government continues to provide significant and growing assistance to provinces in the amount of over $35 billion. These make up a significant part of the revenues to provincial governments, ranging from a high of 46 per cent in Newfoundland to a low of just over 20 per cent in Ontario.
To give an overview, total federal transfers to the provinces, territories and municipalities again will exceed $35 billion in 1990-91. This includes cash transfers of $24 billion and tax transfers of some $11 billion. About 90 per cent of the over $35 billion in federal transfers involves three large programs: Established Programs Financing, $20 billion; equalization payments of some $8 billion; and the Canada Assistance Plan, over $5 billion.
Controlling the debt through deficit reduction is necessary to maintain social programs and a high standard of living for Canadians. If transfers to provinces were exempted from our government's efforts to reduce the deficit and control public debt, other federal programs would have to bear more restraint.
The size of the transfers to the provinces make them difficult to ignore. Again, $35 billion represents almost one-quarter of federal program spending. From the provincial point of view, federal transfers make up anywhere from 30 per cent to 45 per cent of the revenue to the less wealthy provinces and 20 per cent to the richer provinces.
These transfers have grown at an average rate of 5.8 per cent over the last five years, much more than the average annual growth in program spending of 3.6 per cent. Therefore, transfer payments cannot be ignored if further progress is to be made to reduce the deficit and get the public debt under control.

May 28, 1990
Government Orders
I would like to say a few words now about the Established Programs Financing. Historically these transfers were undertaken to assist the provinces to cariy out their responsibilities in respect to health care and post-secondary education. Since 1977 provinces have been able to use these transfers according to their particular priorities rather than in the more restricted fashion required by the previous cost-sharing arrangements.
As a contribution to deficit reduction and debt control for this year and next year, per capita EPF transfers to the provinces will be held constant. This is one feature of Bill C-69. Under Bill C-69 total EPF transfers will continue to grow with provincial population, or about 1 per cent nationally. This measure will reduce federal cash transfers by $870 million in 1990-91 and by $1.5 billion in 1991-92.
Equalization payments represent the second largest transfer program. It totals about $8 billion a year. The equalization program provides provincial governments with sufficient revenues to enable them to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. This year seven provinces are receiving equalization: the four Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Manitoba, and Saskatchewan.
Strong growth in over-all provincial revenues, together with strong economic growth in Ontario, has substantially increased these payments from $5.5 billion in 1984-85 to over $8 billion in the current year.
That brings us to the effect of Bill C-69 on the province of Ontario where the riding of Cambridge is located. The Established Programs Financing to Ontario will be limited to the same per person levels as in 1989-90 for the next two fiscal years.
In addition, however, the growth of social assistance transfers to Ontario under the Canada Assistance Plan will be limited by a 5 per cent cap on the growth of these payments. Ontario will only be affected by the lid on CAP if it chooses to increase spending on social assistance by more than 5 per cent. If it does so, it should bear the extra cost, as it is more able than the federal government to afford them.
Despite these limitations on the transfer growth, transfers to Ontario under the EPF and CAP are
expected to rise from $9.1 billion in 1989-90 to $9.3 billion and $9.5 billion in 1990-91 and 1991-92 respectively. While these increases are less than they were projected to be prior to the budget, they still represent annual growth of more than 2 per cent in each year.
Federal support for Ontario is going to continue playing a strong role in the provincial fiscal picture. In the next two years, the major federal transfer programs will make up more than 20 per cent of the total Ontario revenue. On a per capita basis, the federal transfers are expected to amount to $956 for each Ontario resident in 1990-91 and $963 in the subsequent fiscal year.
One could characterize this as very generous treatment on the part of a jurisdiction, the federal government, that is paying 35 cents on every revenue dollar toward covering the debt charges toward another, the province of Ontario, that pays only 11 cents per dollar toward its debts.
In conclusion, every time the Tories talk about cutting spending, we are criticized. Every group in every region and every opposition member pleads for exemptions. But as long as the country remains largely indifferent to the fiscal bind, which is a legacy of the 1968 through 1984 period, the political risks of attacking the problems remain great.
However, this current government is following, a consistent, comprehensive and far-reaching economic plan that started when this government took office in November, 1984. This plan is directed at creating productive jobs and a higher standard of living through sustained non-inflationary ways.
We hope to accomplish this first by continuing action to eliminate the deficit and reverse the growth of public debt, and second, by putting in place fundamental changes to the economy in order to free private initiative and eliminate the inefficiencies caused by government intervention.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on this bill. This is the kind of bill that gives us an indication of what are, or perhaps I should say what are not, the priorities of this government.
This bill indicates whom the government thinks should bear the burden for its deficit reductions. You, Madam Speaker, are a compassionate person. If you were the person responsible for this bill, you would have those
May 28, 1990

most able to afford it pay for any change in the funding structure.
This bill shows us that the government thinks the easiest place to get the money is from the powerless, from those who are unable to protect themselves. According to the government, British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta are provinces that are doing a little better economically than the rest of Canada. However, poor people in Ontario are the same as the poor in Saskatchewan. If you are poor in British Columbia, you feel it just as much as if you are poor in Alberta. This bill attacks the poor. It attacks the poorest of the poor because they are the people who depend upon the provincial government for the funding to make care available to them.
It also shows that the priority of this government is not to take care of the poor. Furthermore, this bill sentences the people who are already poor, who are already having problems, to at least two years of increasing poverty because the amount of money that the provincial government will have available to take care of them is going to be less each year.
We have had a child care system of a sort in Canada. This government promised that we would have a child care system that would take care of everybody. In fact, the government got as far as bringing legislation before the House. While it was not a particularly good bill, it showed that the government had some concern about this, at least before the election. That concern for child care disappeared some time during the election, and by the end of the election it was not there. This bill makes it possible, I suppose, for the government to say that now there is no money and we cannot expect it to have a further developed child care structure.
This bill does all of these things in a way which suggests that because Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario are a little better off, they can afford to dig deeper some place else and find money for this kind of care. That is not actually what happens. Since the problems of child care and poverty are not a priority for those governments either, consequently they are going to be affected by this change in the financing structure.
The Established Programs Financing originally did exactly that. It established financing for particular programs: health care, post-secondary education and so on
Government Orders
across the board. Originally, that financing was on a dollar-for-dollar basis. For each amount the provincial government spent, it collected a matching grant.
The Liberal government of a few years ago decided that this was getting a little expensive and that it did not have the kind of control over it that it wanted, so it was changed to block funding for secondary education, health and other welfare structures of the provincial governments.
The impact was exactly what we in the New Democratic Party had predicted in those days, that if you take the responsibility for expenditures for the poor and give it to a Conservative or Liberal government, they will not make that a priority. If they are allowed to spend this money any they want, health care or education will not be a priority of a Conservative or a Liberal government, and it was not.
For instance, statistics today show that the province of British Columbia spends less than 1 per cent, in fact less on post-secondary education beyond what it should have or would have received from the federal government. Therefore, we cannot always trust the provincial governments to establish the kind of priorities which we think are important in the New Democratic Party, such as good health care, such as child care, such as care of those people who are unable to feed themselves and clothe themselves.
In 1986, this government further affected the Established Programs Financing by starting a reduction program which would reduce the amount of money that the provinces would have for health care, post-secondary education, and care of people who are poor.
Bill C-69 cuts still further into the kind of financing which we have been talking about here. Consequently, it undermines further the program's ability to improve the standard of living or the quality of life for the people across the country, which is what this established program was intended to do originally. It was already undermined to a certain extent by the Liberal government when it went from established program funding to block funding. The Conservative government further undermined it by reducing it in 1986, and here we have the final blow to this particular program which suggests

May 28, 1990
Government Orders
that from now on $7.3 billion will be cut between 1990-91 and 1994-95.
The total amount in cuts from 1986 to 1995 is $29 billion. That is a considerable amount of money for the governments of the provinces to find. It is going to be particularly difficult for those governments of the three provinces that have been named in this particular bill, because they will find that instead of an increase in relation to the Gross National Product, they are going to have a less amount in relation to the Gross National Product.
The government's main defence of this bill has been that the Established Programs Financing will increase each year. While that is true, so will everything else. Consequently, the gap between what the provinces are able to spend on these programs and the money they will have available for these programs is going to increase. That is going to have a direct impact on health, post-secondary education, child care and poor people.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate. The hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby.


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise to support the amendments put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Mission- Coquitlam.
What the amendments would do is require the Conservative government to live up to its constitutional responsibilities by consulting with the provinces prior to any changes to the Canada Assistance Plan.
Motion No. 4 requires the federal government to serve notice on the three affected provinces that it wants to change the level of federal contributions under the act. It also notes that the passage of this bill cannot be considered as notice as required by Section 8 of the Canada Assistance Plan Act.
Motion No. 8 simply delays the implementation of the bill until 1992. The provisions of Bill C-69 are such that the 5 per cent ceiling on CAP expenditures is for two years only and expires after the fiscal year 1991-92. The effect of this amendment would be to nullify the ceiling on the Canada Assistance Plan.
Whether or not the federal government can move unilaterally and change the Canada Assistance Plan is being considered by the British Columbia Court of
Appeal. No action should take place before the court decides, and all appeals are dealt with.
This government often says that it does not want to comment on any issues that are before the courts. That is often what we hear on this side of the House when we question the government on various matters that are of importance to us. It will often say that it will not comment on anything that is before the courts. New Democrats feel that the government should not move on this bill until the court case has been dealt with.
The amendments would simply delay when this bill would come into effect. The amendments would give the provinces a year's notice and a chance for some consultation over the federal government's intention to slap on spending limits.
Bill C-69 is a devastating piece of legislation. It will put a freeze on the transfer payments to the provinces for health care and for post-secondary education.
In my province of British Columbia, day after day, we already see people on long, long waiting lists for hospital care, particularly for open-heart surgery. It is tragic to read stories in the paper about these people awaiting open-heart surgery and their families, and the stress they go through knowing how critically ill a member of their family is and who cannot get into the hospital in British Columbia to get the needed health care.
As a matter of fact, we are now in the incredible situation of Canadians in British Columbia and in other provinces attempting to get the needed health care, such as heart surgery, in the United States. Canadians have prided themselves for a long time on the level of health care in this country and on the fact that Canadians, no matter what their economic status, are able to receive the health care they need. That is changing and it is changing because of the attitudes of this Conservative Government and the Social Credit Government in British Columbia of Premier Bill Vander Zalm.
We also know that the freeze on transfer payments to post-secondary education is imposing undue hardship on the students of B.C. More and more young students are finishing their degrees at university with debt loads of $25,000 and $30,000. Students have come and told me that they are going to have to stop attending university because of the debt load and because they are not guaranteed a well-paying job when they finish their education. They are concerned about the amount of debt
May 28, 1990

Government Orders
they are carrying to go through university. That is horrendous.
This legislation is only going to make far worse for those students and far worse for people who have lost their jobs because of cutbacks in the forest industry and other industries in British Columbia who are now attempting to get back in to the education system so they can be retrained and get another job. They cannot take the chance. They cannot carry that debt load. It is a disgraceful situation for those young people and for the older people who are trying to get back into the education system in British Columbia.
There are a number of devastating effects of Bill C-69 for the people of British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta, that are totally unfair. The poor in B.C. are just as poor as the poor in any other part of the country. I have been to the food banks in my community. I have been to the school lunch programs in my area. I have seen the people. No one in our society wants the humiliation of lining up, week after week, for a bag of free groceries, and even that bag is shrinking.
Some members on that side of the Elouse seem to think that people are looking for free gifts. Those line-ups are long and the people in those line-ups to get those paltry bags of groceries are humiliated by those walking by and seeing them. They do not want to be there. If they had any other options, they would not be standing in a food bank line-up. I know that. There are now food banks in the Vancouver area simply for single moms and their children. It is shameful that this is happening our country, a wealthy country, a country that prides itself on equal opportunities for all its citizens.
The cap on the Canada Assistance Plan will affect a number of areas in our society. One of the things I hear over and over again when I question the government on its programs or, I should say, its lack of programs and lack of support for women who find themselves living in violent situations in their homes, is some kind of condescending pap from members on the government side. They tell me that they have appointed women to other positions in the government, that they have appointed women to other boards, or about the other appointments for women.
This cap on the Canada Assistance Plan will affect shelters for battered women. That is the federal-provincial funding mechanism for building shelters for battered women. This legislation will prevent more shelters being built and all the soft words and rhetoric of the government about caring for women who find themselves in battered situations, in violent situations, ring very hollow when looking at the real actions.
Another area that will be affected by the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan is child care, and other members have mentioned it here today. Child care is sorely lacking all across Canada, in particular in British Columbia. There are thousands of children who are not in child care situations that we know are safe and that we know have certain standards applied to them. The Canada Assistance Plan again is the mechanism for federal-provincial funding for child care and again we are seeing a limit put on that spending.
I said earlier that the poor of British Columbia are just as poor as those anywhere else in Canada. To put a ceiling on the Canada Assistance Plan is to deal a real blow to those folks. They are already living under the poverty line, already lined up at food banks, and already in a very devastating situation in their home lives.
Bill C-69 clearly shows all Canadians what the Tory agenda is. It is an agenda that we have seen over the past several years where the government has deindexed family allowances. For all its nice words about children, it has deindexed family allowances. Now it has put a clawback on family allowances and on old age pensions. Every single social program in the country has been under attack by the government. The Tory agenda is a very clear agenda. It is one that does not care about the average folks in Canada, the poor, the children, the battered and abused women and Bill C-69 points that out very clearly.
I urge all members in the House to vote against Bill C-69 and stand up for Canadians, stand up for the social safety-net that Canadians have prided themselves on for generations.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Madam Speaker, it seems every time one stands up in the House, one has to apologize to the Canadian people, on behalf of this Parliament, for legislation which this government has brought in and Bill C-69 is no exception to that. On

May 28, 1990
Government Orders
that basis, I am only too pleased to be able to stand here and oppose it.
If we go back to the promises, promises, promises and the sacred trust-if anyone can remember them anymore-what we have here is the application of the law of the jungle to the sacred trust concept. What we have here is the tooth and the claw. The previous speaker and others have referred to the clawback. That appellation, I would remind the House, was put there by the government itself and it is certainly no accident that that was the case.
Bill C-69 is a way of circumventing something which the Finance Minister said was not going to occur when he brought down the budget. That is bringing the budget down, making all these changes to it and all the slashing of programs, on the premise of supposedly reducing the deficit and the national debt.
In bringing down the budget, the minister said that there were not going to be any cuts. Actually the quote is almost directly that the cuts are going to be exempted in major transfers to persons. What he failed to say, or maybe very conveniently forgot, was that there were major cuts already in the works from the previous budget, which had not even been implemented yet. I speak primarily of the changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act and the clawbacks to which I have already referred.
These are going to add to the misery of people before Bill C-69 was even introduced. It is absolutely fatuous for the minister to have made those references that people are going to exempted from major cut-backs when he brought in the budget.
One of the best quotes-although I have heard it before-is certainly is something that we ought to be reminded of. My colleague, the hon. member for Saanich-Gulf Islands, said that the government really does know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
We talk about the cuts in transfer payments to the provinces. Cuts? Well, they are frozen, are they not, for two years? One can just imagine the talks that must have gone on in deciding how to word the government's excuses for what it had done. "Freezing, of course, is not
a cut." Of course, freezing is a cut because there is the matter of inflation and the increase in the cost of living.
Lately, many people are having tremendous difficulty getting into university. The previous speaker talked about the cost of financing a university education, but the cuts in the transfer payments have other devastating effects as well, not the least of which is the ability to even get into the university.
In the beautiful university city of Saskatoon, the university has the reputation of being one of the major educational institutions in the country. There have now been approximately 1,500 students unable to go to university in the last two or three years because there have not been the facilities or the finances in the university to accommodate them, either through the lack of physical facilities or the university's inability to finance enough professors to handle the teaching.
As a result, these people have been excluded by an increase in the academic standards which they have to attain in order to get in. I would suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that a good portion of the people who sit across the aisle who are responsible for the debt and the deficit, for the problems these people are having in Saskatoon and elsewhere in the country, would not be able to attain the academic requirements that these young people will have to attain in order to get into university. Here they are, responsible for the very problems that these people are facing. It is just an absolute disgrace that we have to raise academic standards and exclude people from university. Able people are being excluded because of the financial shenanigans of the government opposite.
It is not any kind of an amelioration to the problems of the people of British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta-to change the subject a bit and talk about the Canada Assistance Plan-to say that they are the richer provinces and it is only Alberta, B.C. and Ontario and not every province. Half of Canada's poor live in those three provinces. As was pointed out previously, whether one happens to live in Prince Edward Island or in Toronto, if one is poor, the effects of it are just as devastating. We certainly have a food bank in Saskatoon, something we did not have before 1984 when the present government came to power. It just boggles everyone's mind how this government can speak about the prosperity that this country is supposed to be experiencing while every day we see that the results are exactly the opposite. We see

the results of the failed programs which this government has brought in to help the people of Canada. The problem is that at least 50 per cent of the Canadian population is feeling no positive benefits of the government's programs at all.
If one is unemployed, then the effects of the unemployment insurance changes which may or may or not come about-let us all hope that they do not-will be devastating to the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. They will be just as severe on the other provinces. The number of people who will be in the poorer categories of our society will increase, even on the basis of the government's own predictions. Last year we had an unemployment rate on average of 7.5 per cent. This year the government's own predictions are that it will be 8.2 per cent, while next year it will be 8.5 per cent.
We can see that it is absolutely senseless to say it is only three provinces out of the total. If you are poor, you are poor. If you are going to be suffering from the lack of income or the inability to purchase food, it does not really matter what province you are in.
I am certainly pleased to see that at least one province, with the co-operation of another, is taking the government to court on that matter. I can only wish them good luck because it is an abomination.
Similar comparisons could be made between the educational system and health care. The question of health care has a lot to do with free trade where we get the so-called level playing field with the United States, where those who can afford medical attention get it, and those who cannot pay when they enter the door, do not get it. That is precisely the kind of a situation we are getting into in Canada. There is no way that this government is going to be able to deny it. It is going to be a fact.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: On a point of order the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, in light of the attention the hon. member's speech was attracting, I wonder if there might not be unanimous consent to allow him to continue.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate with the hon. member for Comox-Alberni.
Government Orders


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I was interested in the comments made on this amendment over the last few hours in the House, particularly some of the comments coming from the Liberal side. I am under the impression that the Liberals intend to vote against this motion. I think it should be stated again exactly what this motion is designed to do.
It is designed to require the national government to give legal notice to the provinces before it imposes this bill. As the member for New Westminster pointed out, that will require well over a year, at which point this bill will cease to have any impact. In other words this motion nullifies the effect of the bill.
The Liberals intend to do it this way. They know that 100 per cent of the Tories are going to vote in support of this bill. Thus they are saying that they want it implemented immediately, which is stupid.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: We are voting against this bill.


Robert Evans Skelly: You are voting against it. They are voting for it. The bill is getting passed. What you are saying by not voting for this motion is that you are asking for it to be implemented immediately. I cannot figure out the logic in what the Liberals are doing except if you know a bit of the background, especially in British Columbia.
As was pointed out by some members, it has been the likes of Bill Vander Zalm, the Premier of British Columbia, and Mel Couvelier, the illustrious Minister of Finance of British Columbia, who have advocated a cutback in federal transfer payments to the provinces.
Let us look at the political history of these two individuals. Mel Couvelier is a former leader of the Liberal party in British Columbia, elected by all of those Liberals in B.C. He is the person advocating a cutback in federal transfer payments to provinces such as British Columbia.
Then there is Bill Vander Zalm. Bill Vander Zalm ran for the leadership of the Liberals in the province of British Columbia. I do have to give credit to the Liberals because when Bill Vander Zalm came out in favour of public floggings and hangings he could not get a bare majority to support him to be leader of the party. He had some strong support, but he could not get the majority needed to become leader of the party in British Columbia.

May 28, 1990
Government Orders
In British Columbia the Liberals have jumped into bed with the Tories, the Reformers, the Flat Earth Society and a bunch of other right wing crazies, basically on a negative program to keep the New Democratic Party, the largest party in British Columbia, out of power.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: They have succeeded abundantly.


Robert Evans Skelly: That is all this member is concerned about. This is Liberal type legislation. It is being demanded by two of the paramount Liberals in British Columbia, one a former leader and one an aspiring leader of the Liberal party.
I do not want to say that it is entirely Liberal legislation, because it is being presented by the Tories in the House today. In British Columbia the Liberals go to bed with the Tories in order to keep the NDP out of office. That is a bit of a problem, but here we are involved in a bit of a public dispute between the two parties.
The simple fact is that the Liberals and the Tories believe in precisely the same kind of attack on social programs and that is why they are going to vote against the motion that has been presented by my colleague from Saskatoon. They know that the huge Tory majority in the House is going to pass this legislation, and by voting against this motion, they are saying that once it is passed, it is going to be implemented right away.
That is exactly what members are doing by voting against this motion and they know it. I think they have received phone calls from Bill Vander Zalm and Mel Couvelier instructing them on this motion.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: How can you say that with a straight face? This is silly nonsense.


Robert Evans Skelly: This is dangerous legislation. We have always been told by the government opposite that we have to cut the deficit in order to protect social programs. The government says if we do not cut the deficit, if we do not cut the debt, we are going to constantly be paying out from the public treasury to the bankers, the bond holders and the people who hold the debt of this country and we are not going to be able to sustain the social programs at the levels and quality we want in this country.
The Prime Minister has called social programs a sacred trust. He says he wants to cut the deficit and the debt in order to maintain these social programs. He does
not mean a word he is saying. The Tory program in this country has all along been absolutely identical to the Tory program of Margaret Thatcher. It has been identical to the mean-spirited Tory program of Ronald Reagan. There is absolutely no difference between this and the attack on social programs that has taken place in the United States under Reagan and in Great Britain under Margaret Thatcher. The real ideological movement behind Bill C-69 is that the Tories do not like social programs and that is all there is to it.
There are other methods of cutting the deficit and we have proposed some of them. Just the other weekend the Secretary of State for External Affairs suggested that maybe we should cut back some of the troops in Europe or cut back some of the armaments, those obsolete nuclear arms that are only designed to hit Poland and Czechoslovakia, countries who now suddenly find themselves on our side.
We could cut back on those things and save billions of dollars. Then we can maintain the social programs that we have to their present quality and extent and possibly even expand those programs so that they actually do the job they are designed to do.
My daughter is graduating from high school now in British Columbia. She is going to be going to university. Because British Columbia is not a major contributor to the cost of post-secondaiy education, the cost of going to university is going to be more than my daughter can afford. If she was going to school in Quebec she would be paying one-third of the tuition fees that she would be paying in British Columbia.
Now the government is freezing EPF funding so that there can be absolutely no increase in the amount of money going into post-secondary education in that province. More and more money will have to come from the students themselves and more and more students will fall below the cut-off line and will not be able to afford to go to university.
That is the kind of mean-spirited Tory policy that we see in this legislation. By passing this motion we will be able to delay this legislation long enough, especially if the odd sensible Tory member on the opposite side supports it, that it will be null and void and have no effect.
May 28, 1990

I come from the province of British Columbia which is having difficulties these days with its health care system. It is an absolute shame what the Vander Zalm government has done to health care in British Columbia. There are hospitals throughout the province that have all the equipment, all the facilities, and all the operating rooms they need. What they do not have is staff because the B.C. government, under Bill Vander Zalm, is against hiring people to work in hospitals or paying them decent wages. That is because he does not understand one thing in his Liberal-Tory mind. He forgets the fact that it is not buildings that care for people, it is not equipment that cares for people, it is people who care for people and he should be hiring people in those hospitals so that they can deliver the services.
It is necessary to send sick British Columbians across the border to Seattle and Bellingham in Washington and to Portland, Oregon, to get surgery when we have the facilities and the equipment. We just do not have a government with the right kind of priorities.
This is the kind of legislation that backs up the insane social policy of people like Bill Vander Zalm. I would encourage my Liberal friends to vote for this motion and against this legislation and to let us get on with developing quality social programs in this country.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I too rise with respect to this motion. This is an issue that is fundamental to this country. It has always been my impression, and I think it is the impression of many Canadians, that health and education are two of the most fundamental issues in our society today. When a government ignores those issues it does so at the peril of the future of this nation. What is a nation if we do not have a strong recognition and a strong desire to educate people to their best capability, to encourage the society to move ahead? In order to move ahead it needs a commitment by governments, both federal and provincial, to education.
Health as well is a fundamental issue to society. With the advances in technology and with the prospects for help in the future, it is necessary for a government to have a major commitment to health. Unfortunately, this government has fallen short on both counts.
Government Orders
Approximately $19 billion is transferred to the provinces each year, with roughly 70 per cent or $13.3 billion of that amount going for hospital insurance and medicare. The effect of this bill is to freeze at current levels funding for federal transfers for the next two fiscal years, 1990-91 and 1991-92. After that, the transfers will grow at the rate of the GNP, minus 3 per cent.
This is not the first time that this government has affected health and education in this way. Back in 1986 this particular government cut 2 per cent from the rate of growth in health and education spending. In fact, the government began declining its support in relation to the Gross National Product.
The effect of this bill will be to cut $7.3 billion from federal transfers between 1991 and 1994-95. When the effect of the 1986 cuts is included, the total amount cut between 1986 and 1995, as calculated by the Library of Parliament, will be something in the order of $29 billion.
What effect is that having? It is having some tremendous effects. I have been personally affected by a family in the riding, the Attfields who live in Lanigan, Saskatchewan. Mrs. Attfield has written a number of times and made comments publicly. In an article in the Lanigan paper not so very long ago she indicated that Princess Margaret Hospital in Toronto-one place in which lifesaving bone marrow transplants are taking place-received enough cuts to force it to cancel 10 transplants in one year. Her husband, Kevin, had bone cancer and needed a transplant. Her husband, who was supposed to have a transplant in February, waited until July to have his transplant. During this period his condition went into an advanced stage and the bone marrow transplant did not work.
She wrote that oncology specialists in Saskatoon and Toronto told them that had his transplant taken place when it was scheduled, the success rate would have been much higher and the transplant probably would have worked. She wrote: "Because it was postponed, the leukaemia that Kevin is afflicted with will probably cost him his life".
This morning I phoned Mrs. Attfield to discuss this matter with her. I was advised that Kevin died this morning. It is a tragedy when something like that happens. You feel helpless as an elected member standing and talking to this Chamber. The need for a commitment to health care has to be there. The reality is there.

May 28, 1990
Adjournment Debate
This is one situation of thousands throughout the country.
What this government has done by implementing and taking the action it has means that there will be a whole lot of other Kevin Attfields in this country in the future. It is not right or proper.
It is time that we as a legislative body think about the Kevin Attfields in this country. It is time we made a real commitment to health and education.
That is why this bill is wrong. I know, and we all know, that there are deficit problems. This is not the proper way to cut the deficit.
Surely members on the other side know that in their hearts themselves. To have something like this happen is simply tragic. It leaves a person speechless.
I want to close by saying that I hope that the government will change its attitude and start to commit itself to areas that really count in this country such as health and education so that similar problems will be alleviated in the future.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. members:: Question.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The first question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of Ms. Langan.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The second question is on Motion No. 8 standing in the name of Ms. Langan. .
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. members:: Yea.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. members:: Nay.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on the report stage of the bill now before the House. Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:
Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the Deputy Government Whip to defer the division until a later time.

Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the recorded division on the question now before the House stands deferred until tomorrow at 3 p.m, at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than fifteen minutes.

Is there unanimous consent of the House to call it seven o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.
May 28, 1990

Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Madam Speaker, I raised the matter of tire recycling in this House last week, referring, of course, to the fire in Saint-Amable and to the one in Hagersville a few weeks ago. They have been environmental disasters.
The problem is, Madam Speaker, that we know the danger they represent, but we do not know what to do with used tires. The technology exists however to recycle them or to burn them.
I had suggested that option in my supplementary to the Minister responsible. I have since been able to obtain more information.
On February 16, 1990, the Minister of the Environment told the House that Environment Canada had developped a program to establish and develop a recycling and energy conservation process that was going to be funded at the cost of $2 million.
According to figures I obtained from a departmental official, from $500,000 to $800,000 has been spent to date. But we must tell hon. members and Canadians that this program came into being 10 years ago, in 1980, under a previous government. It decided there was to be a program to investigate the possibility of recycling or burning used tires which, as we know, are piling up in many places across the country. The best known, of course, are Saint-Amable and Hagersville.
Madam Speaker, the purpose of this program established by the previous government was to help stimulate research into tire recycling. It was for projects to use tires in manufacturing and not to burn them right away to produce energy. The provinces have never licensed a company to burn tires. In 1983, the province of Ontario refused Canada Cement Lafarge a licence to burn tires, on the grounds that it was hazardous for the environment. But at the present time, with the little research I have done, we have a company in California.

It is the world's largest tire fired power station. It has been running successfully for the past two years, next to the world's biggest used tire dump in Modesto, California.
Adjournment Debate
The plant burns 4.5 million tires a year and generates 15 megawatts of electricity, enough to meet the needs of 14,000 homes. Useful steel, zinc and gypsum are extracted from the ash.
Oxford Energy, the plant owner and operator, is building a second tire burning power station in Sterling, Connecticut with an input of 10 million tires a year and an electrical output of 30 megawatts. The company plans to build six to eight similar plants in the United States by 1995.
We have in Canada in the last years spent amounts of money and have one of the greatest research facilities at our disposal, the National Research Council. The technology exists to the south of us. That is the question I was aiming at last week. After the disaster at Hagersville how come we have not simply gone to see this technology that exists? Why do we not look it over, see what the environmental problems are, if any, and apply it here? We would save ourselves a lot of grief like we had in St-Amable and Hagersville.
I would like to know from the Department of the Environment what we are waiting for. Why not purchase this technology if we have to? God knows we could have saved ourselves a lot of money when we consider the disasters of St-Amable and Hagersville.

Madam Speaker, that is basically all there is to it. What will Environment Canada do in the wake of these two disasters? Did it check out this new technology? If not, what is it waiting for? Did it call on the internationally famous National Research Centre, which has succeeded in solving a lot of problems? If they have found other solutions, we would like to hear them.


Walter Leland Rutherford (Lee) Clark: Madam Speaker, I apologize to my hon. friend for my late arrival. I was anticipating this debate to commence at seven o'clock, so he caught me slightly off guard.
There are two or three points I would like to make in response to my hon. friend's questions and comments. First of all, I would certainly like to express my appreciation to the government of Quebec for the manner in

May 28, 1990
Adjournment Debate
which it responded to the fire and, particularly, for the very co-operative way in which it was willing to work with the Government of Canada and other jurisdictions.
As you may know, Madam Speaker, the federal government was involved from the very first instance on the day on which the fire broke out. We were able to be present and to monitor water, soil and air emissions throughout. We are continuing to do so. Certainly the good news is that the results to this point in time have been very encouraging.
I would also like to pay tribute to the skill of the fire-fighters who demonstrated that they brought to their task a great deal of expertise. Perhaps to some degree they learned from previous fires which have occurred throughout the country and in the United States. I was encouraged by the results as well.
As I think all members of this House know, the disposal of waste such as the tires in question falls within the provincial government's jurisdiction. Nevertheless, the federal government is very anxious to assist wherever possible, as we did in this particular case.
In addition, we are working with the Council of Environment Ministers, involving all jurisdictions across the country, in putting together an action plan which we hope will ensure that these types of fires are less likely to occur in the future and, when they do occur, that they will be less of a threat to those who live in the vicinity.
Part of the good news relating to the fire in Quebec which has just occurred was the fact that the tires were located in a less flammable manner than that which occurred in a previous fire in Ontario. While I listened with interest to what the hon. member has said in respect of new technology, I think more vigilance on the part of provincial governments and closer adherence to the existing regulations by the proprietors will ensure that storage facilities in the future will be safer than they have been in the past.
The federal government is very actively involved in the search for financially feasible recycling technologies. At the moment we have the capacity only to recycle a small percentage of tires available in Canada. When we look to the future we are going to have to see much more strict regulations in respect of the disposal of automobiles, tires, and parts thereof.
At the moment we are working to try to make such recycling efforts as profitable as possible and to encourage therefore less storage and more use. There is certainly some expense involved in that, but I think the manner in which the federal government and the provinces are working together in co-operation with the private sector will, if not ensure, at least alleviate the problem in the future. We may not be able to guarantee we will not have such fires, but I think we can guarantee that we will be in a better position to deal with them and there will be less danger of such fires because greater numbers of tires will be recycled in the future.


SCOTIA SYNFUELS PROJECT
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, on May 16, 1990 I put a question to the then Minister of Public Works with regard to the possible support of the Scotia Synfuels project to be located in Cape Breton Island.
At that time the minister responded to my question by giving the same sort of flippant answer that we have been receiving for quite some time: that the matter would be given due consideration and a decision reached at an appropriate time.
I wish to point out for members of the House that this particular project has been in the making for quite some time. In point of fact, there are 10 specific reasons as to why Nova Scotians and indeed Canadians would want to see this particular project proceed and proceed without delay.
The first point is that this would be a major job creator for the province for Nova Scotia. Over 2,000 permanent jobs, direct and indirect, would result if this project would go ahead. Approximately 500 jobs in the construction industry would result for the next three years alone.
It should be noted that unemployment in Cape Breton Island at the present time is exceedingly high. You may be aware, Madam Speaker, that the unadjusted rate in Canada today for unemployment is 7.7 per cent, while in the province of Nova Scotia it is 11 per cent. In the province of Ontario, the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate is 5.3 per cent, whereas in the Island of Cape Breton the official unemployment rate as of April 21, 1990, was 19.1 per cent.
May 28, 1990

We believe that to be an incorrect figure. We believe it to be substantially higher because hundreds of individuals have given up and thereafter do not report any longer to the local CEIC offices to register for employment in that they have lost all hope. The need is there, and these jobs would certainly be welcomed in that area of Canada.
The second reason for supporting this project is that there would be a new market for 400,000 tonnes of coal from the Cape Breton Development Corporation. That corporation produces a high sulphur coal. This would be a plus for this particular project and not a negative.
Third, it would be a generator of new business for suppliers of goods and services in the province of Nova Scotia. The capital cost of the project would be $450 million. There would be new tax revenues from municipal, provincial and federal governments.
Fourth, this is a proven technology. It is the same basic technology chosen by Husky Oil for its $1.5 billion upgrader in Lloydminster.
Fifth, it is environmentally the most advanced commercial technology for removing acid rain pollutants from coal and oil.
Sixth, more permanent employment would accrue as a result of this particular project than Hibernia, at a fraction of the cost of Hibernia.
Seventh, this project would produce 4 billion barrels a year of high value refinery feedstock for gasoline and diesel and also clean power utility fuels and by-products for pure sulphur.
Eighth, this could be integrated with the Nova Scotia power plant at Point Tupper to provide 150 megawatts of additional power at a rock bottom price.
Ninth, over $5 million has been invested to date in coal testing and feasibility studies, of which $2 million has been provided by the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia.
Tenth, the favourable economics of this particular project would be that capital costs have been reduced by 65 per cent, better economics than the federal government's supported megaprojects in western Canada, where commercial viability is dependent upon existing federal government incentives.
Adjournment Debate
It is essential that if these 10 points are to be realized by providing employment in an area which has high unemployment and by providing a new technology which is environmentally healthy and safe for the residents who live there and elsewhere, it would deplete acid rain in a demonstrable way. If those goals are to be realized, the Government of Canada will have to come forward and support this project fully as it has supported other projects across the country. If it provides the tax credit that this consortium is looking for, most if not all the money will then be able to come from the private sector.
We have the state on the one hand being actively involved in pursuing economic activities for an area of this country which so desperately needs it, coupled with the private sector that will make financial contributions in order to realize this particular goal.
In terms of what is good public policy, this is certainly an example of what is good public policy. I would only hope that government members opposite, and indeed the spokesperson for the government today, would stand in their places and give unequivocal support to the Scotia Synfuels project. It enjoys the support of local municipal governments all across Cape Breton.
Something very unusual has occurred in the province of Nova Scotia as well. On April 18, in the Nova Scotia House of Assembly there was on all-party resolution. It was supported by the New Democratic party finally. It was supported by the Conservative party. The official opposition, the Liberal party also supported it. They all agreed to lend their support to the Scotia Synfuels project. They as provincial legislators realize the value this project could bring to Cape Breton Island in terms of new coal production, and environmentally safe permanent construction jobs. It would assist us in terms of our fight with regard to acid rain.
In conclusion, I ask that government members give serious and active consideration to a positive decision which must be reached and communicated to the consortium prior to the end of May of this year, or this consortium will walk away from the project it has been working at for upwards of six or seven years. I would hope that members opposite will understand the impor-

May 28, 1990
Adjournment Debate
tance and value of this project to the economic opportunities which there could be in Cape Breton.


William James Kempling: Madam Speaker, the Scotia Synfuels proposal in Cape Breton has considerable potential to benefit economically the eastern Nova Scotia region.
I wish to reiterate some of the points which the minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency made last week in this Chamber.
The Government of Canada has been trying to enhance economic opportunities in the Atlantic region by considering every alternate employment opportunity that will help to diversify the economy. The creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is a manifestation of this government's commitment in that regard.
It should be pointed out that while the hon. member has pressed for the approval of an investment tax credit for the synfuels project, it is Industry, Science and Technology Canada rather than ACOA which has the lead role for the federal government in this project. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, as the development agency for small and medium size businesses, can play an advocacy role.
That being said, I wish to point out that federal officials have devoted a great deal of time to looking at the long-term economic viability of this project and its potential to create long-term employment. I also wish to point out that under the Canada-Nova Scotia-Straits of Canso area development subagreement ACOA and the provincial government together funded $650,000 or 50 per cent of the cost of the technical feasibility study completed in November 1989.
As has too often been the case prior to 1984-and my colleagues opposite just have to look at the track record of their party when in power to confirm this-governments have often been eager to invest in projects in the Cape Breton area simply as a quick fix. This government wants to be certain that an investment of public funds results in durable and viable jobs for the long term.
With respect to Scotia Synfuels, ACOA and Industry, Science and Technology Canada officials want to be sure that this project, valued at well over $400 million, is sufficiently viable to justify the substantial expenditure
of public funds which would be required for an investment tax credit.
While the number of jobs this facility promises to create is certainly impressive, there is still more study required before any decision can be made.


AGRICULTURE
Rodney Edward Laporte: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question which I raised in the House on May 2, respecting the future of agriculture in this country. At the time I raised it there was a lot of concern in this country with respect to agriculture and the future of agriculture, particularly in western Canada.
I would like to highlight some of the areas where there are concerns. Farmers are concerned because of FCC rates. The so-called farmers' bank has increased rates a number of times this year, which is causing problems. High interest rates are a killer for producers as they are a major problem for businesses throughout this country. The Economic Council of Canada has predicted this year that incomes will be down by some 87 per cent. That is an increase from earlier predictions but a drop in income of 87 per cent, which is astounding.
The future of the Canadian Wheat Board is in question with respect to the movement of oats because of the free trade agreement and the fact that next year certainly grain and possibly wheat and barley will come cross the Canadian border unrestricted. We have the government failing to use Article 701.4 of the free trade agreement. Article 701.4 indicates that whenever either Canada or the United States is entering into agreements with third parties, that it is a violation if the agreement affects the ability of the country to trade.
Certainly, that has happened with respect to the U.S.S.R. and the announcement that the United States is going to sell some 12 million tonnes of grain to that country, subsidizing a third of that. This will have a direct impact on our sales to the U.S.S.R. Although the government has admitted it is a problem, it has not taken an extra step to put some muscle to the statement. It exists under the free trade agreement.
The U.S. farm bill continues to have a problem going through. The new farm bill will be virtually the same as the last farm bill. At the same time, we have a government that is cutting support for our producers. The at and east bill, dealing with export grain through the ports
May 28, 1990

of Halifax and Saint John, has meant that Saint John has closed its elevator. Quite likely, Halifax will close as well.
As the Canadian Wheat Board indicated very recently, if this happens it will affect the sale of grain from western Canada to world markets. Lord knows, we need all the help we can get these days with the subsidization of grain through the United States and Europe. At the same time, there are all sorts of rumours, I believe well founded, that there will be an announcement in the fall that the crow benefit for farmers that exists now will quite likely be gone.
We have a situation in which western Canada is in dire straits. Agriculture across the country is having problems. In Saskatchewan, 70 per cent of the communities have lost population in the last five years. When a farmer goes onto the land to plant his crop, these are the items that he is concerned with. Farmers do not see the government addressing these problems seriously.
When I asked the question, the $500 million program had been announced but was still in limbo. Now that it has been announced that it will be going to the farmers, there is no indication what sort of detail there will be or what sort of form it will take.
There is a problem in western Canada with agriculture. There is a lack of confidence there in the direction that this government is taking. The last time I asked the question, unfortunately the Minister of State for Grains and Oilseeds answered with simple rhetoric. I hope the hon. parliamentary secretary will not resort to that.
Again, I would ask the question: Given this situation, the atmosphere that exists throughout the country and particularly in western Canada, and given some of the problems that I outlined a moment ago, what is this government doing to encourage a viable rural and farming sector? What is it doing to encourage farmers to look forward to planting a crop this season? What is this government doing that will make a farmer and the rural communities have some confidence in the government and that we will have a viable and healthy rural economy down the road?


Mr. Murray Cardiff (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has touched on many items, more than on just the initial pricing of wheat. I want to address the issue
Adjournment Debate
and indicate why the initial price of wheat had to be set where it was.
The hon. member knows that the Canadian Wheat Board's initial payments are set each spring in relation to anticipated conditions in the world grain market in the coming crop year.
In 1990-91, world production of wheat and coarse grains is expected to increase. Production of these grains might be able to exceed world consumption. That means there is a good chance that world grain supplies will be higher than they were in 1989. Therefore, grain prices are expected to be low.
Another result of the expected higher production is anticipated larger grain supplies available for export in the European Community and the United States. Both are expected to have more wheat to export. The EC is expected to produce more barley and it will be looking for export opportunities.
With more grain to export, both these major grain traders could be expected to increase their export subsidy levels. Again, this would keep world grain prices low.
We have seen over the last few years how the export subsidies used by the EC and the United States have driven down world grain prices and shifted world trading patterns. Ten years ago the EC exported just over 10 million tonnes of wheat. This year, it is expected to export more than 19 million tonnes. In 1988-89 the EC had 20 per cent of the world wheat market, compared with just 6 per cent 10 years earlier.
However, even with the high production and pricelowering subsidy practices of the EC and the U.S., low grain prices in 1990-1991 are not an absolute certainty. Conditions could improve and prices could rise accordingly.
World grain supplies at the end of the present crop year are expected to be at their lowest level, compared to world consumption, since the mid-1970s. With this low-supply situation, world grain prices will be extremely sensitive to weather conditions over the course of the next crop year. A drought or other weather problem which resulted in crop failure in any of the major grain-producing areas of the world would cause prices to increase.

Adjournment Debate
The government will monitor world grain markets closely throughout the crop year. Initial payment levels will be increased if market conditions warrant an increase. This is not uncommon. In the current crop year, initial payments for spring wheat and barley were increased once to reflect changes in the world market. Initial payments for designated barley were increased twice in this crop year. Initial payments for designated barley were set last April at $115 a tonne. The current level, after the two adjustments, is $170 a tonne.
When initial payments are adjusted, this increase is paid to farmers on their grain deliveries since the beginning of the crop year in the form of an adjustment payment.
The setting of the initial payments has to be done cautiously. When the government sets these payments, it is trying to forecast developments in the world market for the next 18 months. The initial payments are guaranteed by the federal government. They cannot be set higher than what is realistic without risking a deficit in
the wheat board pool accounts. Initial payments cannot be lowered once they are set for any particular crop year. Any loss must be covered by the federal government. Rather than risk such a loss the government will watch grain markets closely and adjust payments if conditions improve.
In the meantime the hon. member is very aware of the programs this government has brought forward, with the $500 million assistance program for this year and the provinces coming up with programs to help match that. We hope that will assist and give the farmers the confidence required to plant the crops that are so necessary this year and in anticipation that the prices will improve.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: 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 6.23 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, May 29,1990