1991-12-04

Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising today to implore the federal government to implement at least one of the recommendations of Canada's Auditor General. The government should immediately start giving taxpayers a score card on how we are doing in working to eliminate the deficit. Telling Canadians what our financial position is just once a year in a budget is not good enough. People paying high income taxes, business taxes, sales taxes, user fees, payroll taxes and surtaxes deserve a monthly or at least quarterly accounting. The government has to give us some hope that there is light at the end of the tunnel, that the deficit will be reduced to zero in so many months.
The Auditor General is right on this one and the Minister of Finance would do well to listen and then to take action.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, unemployment keeps rising in Quebec. In the riding of Chambly, Aliments Terra has closed its doors, resulting in 200 lay-offs. On January 3, Angus will close down in east Montreal, which means another 3,000 jobs lost. Joint action by governments is urgently needed to breathe new life into the economy of Montreal.
Last week's announcement, a pitiful $32 million per year for five years, is nowhere near being the kind of serious joint program we need to help the economy in Quebec.
The government must realize it has a duty to get involved in the recovery of Quebec's economy. I would ask all members of this House to do their homework before they get involved in this kind of discussion so they can make a constructive contribution to the debate. This is not patronage. It is a matter of elementary justice and common sense.


FORESTRY
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak today about Canada's most important industry, northwestern Ontario's most important industry and Thunder Bay's most important industry.
Forestry is this country's single largest industry. It generates over $40 billion a year in sales. It accounts for about $20 billion yearly in export sales, all in U.S. funds. More than 800,000 Canadians are employed directly by this industry and 8,000 large and small businesses are directly involved in the forestry industry.
This industry is in serious difficulty today and government intervention is needed badly. What we need is a de-inking and recycling of facilities throughout this country. The future of Canada's industry and northwestern Ontario depends on being able to supply recycled products to all of our customers.
This government must act now before Canada's major industry is all but shut down.


SISTERS OF THE ASSUMPTION
Mr. Willie Littlechild (Wetaskiwin):: Recently the Sisters of the Assumption celebrated 100 years of dedicated service to the people of the Four Nations of Hobbema in my constituency and also in western Canada.

I quote in part from a poem of thanks by Linda Cutknife:
- these Sisters have watched the community of Hobbema grow From rags to riches
They have shared our happiness and our pain.
They were with us when we buried our people in tragic times,
They offered us prayer and goodness
when we thought the world had gone insane. . .
We will never forget these Sisters
Who were sometimes our mothers, our friends, our teachers or whatever we wanted them to be.
They taught us how to pray to God,
How to talk to Jesus as a friend,
And they told us the story of how Jesus died so that we could be free-
In the spirit of national unity, I ask this House to join me and all my constituents in thanking the Sisters of the Assumption for all they have done to build a great nation.


AIR TRAFFIC CONTROLLERS
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am appalled to hear reports that the federal Department of Transport is considering the withdrawal of air traffic controllers from Charlottetown and 12 other airports across the county.
The reports suggest that the controllers may be withdrawn as early as February of next year.
Some 30,000 flights a year use the Charlottetown airport, and those people are entitled to the same level of service as enjoyed in the rest of the country.
The continual erosion of services in the outlying areas of this country shows us that this government is trying to fight its deficit problems on the backs of the poorest people and in the poorest regions of the country.
I call on the Minister of Transport to reject this recommendation and to assure Canadians in smaller centres that the level of service will remain the same for them as for other Canadians.


CANADIAN HORSE
Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of importance to a number of constituents in the Cambridge area.
The Canadian horse is a national breed and is now endangered. There are approximately 1,100 in existence and of these 700 are 100 per cent pure. The Canadian horse is part of our heritage and was proclaimed the national breed by Parliament on March 17, 1909.
To promote the Canadian breed, to commemorate its place in our history and to remind Canadians of our natural heritage, the constituents of Cambridge would like to see a stamp series produced to honour the breed of horse known as the Canadian.
I ask that serious consideration be given to having the Canadian horse breed honoured by a stamp.


CROATIA
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, "The Situation in Croatia", a report prepared by 11 of the 12 monitoring delegations, has overwhelmingly substantiated the charges that have been levelled against the Yugoslav army: targeting the sick, killing children, bulldozing villages.
Innocent civilians are clearly being confronted by an army run amok. How much longer is the international community going to stand aside? Where is the new world order that was supposed to be dawning but a short time ago?
The question is: Are we doomed forever to replay history? The answer must be no. The United Nations must take action. There must be a military interposition between the Yugoslav army and those who are being brutalized.
There must be a massive transfer of humanitarian assistance. The international community must rise to the challenge before it and Canada, if we are to be true to ourselves, must take the lead.
December 4, 1991	COMMONS


SYRIAN JEWRY
Mr. Jean-Pierre Hogue (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Canadian Parliamentary Friendship Group for Syrian Jewry was formed. Our group has Conservative, Liberal and New Democrat representatives who are deeply concerned about the plight of Jews in Syria.
Today I want to bring this grave situation to the attention of my colleagues in the House and all Canadians.
There are 4,500 Jews in Syria who are being denied the right to leave oppressive Syrian rule.

Jews living in Syria have been deprived of their basic rights. They cannot emigrate. They cannot travel freely and they cannot vote. They are jailed and tortured. Their correspondence and telephone conversations are censored, and their activities are watched very closely.

We must work together to ensure for all Syrian Jews that fundamental human rights are guaranteed, including their safe departure from Syrian oppression to freedom.


FISHERIES
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton -East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, fish plants in Glace Bay and Louisbourg are vital to our local economy.
The federal government should explain why it decided to increase cod quotas around Cape Breton Island for the French metropolitan fleet from St. Malo, France, in the past year and to cut cod quotas for Canadians.
The federal government should also withdraw a commitment given to France that it can catch 60 per cent of its entire year's cod quota around Cape Breton Island in the first three months of 1992.
Not only have the cod quotas been increased for France around Cape Breton Island, but foreign nations like Bulgaria and Poland have been given so-called

experimental licences to catch mackerel, with 30 per cent by-catch of capelin in the Sydney Bight in the past year.
The federal government has systematically destroyed the cod fishery around Cape Breton Island and in the gulf by issuing licences to Cuba to catch squid along the Nova Scotia coast and the U.S.S.R. to catch capelin. Both species are the food supply of the gulf cod stock.
Not one tonne of fish should be taken from Canadian quotas while Canada gives one ounce of quota to foreign nations around our coast.


CROATIA
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-StoufF-
ville): Mr. Speaker, in a special report signed by 11 out of 12 European community members monitoring delegations, the Yugoslavian army is accused of deliberately targeting civilians, hospitals and schools in Croatia.
The report states these acts are brutal and have proven effective in terrorizing the people of Croatia. The report of last week entitled "The Situation in Croatia" condemns the Serb dominated Yugoslav force as a "cowardly army fighting no recognizable principle, but largely, instinctively for its own status and survival".
The report recommends that the 12-nation European community intervene militarily and punish the Yugoslav federal army. I believe we should go one step further. We must announce to these self-serving Communist officers of the Yugoslav army that a war tribunal will be set up to try the officers of either army who have committed war crimes.
The barbaric attacks and bloodshed against Croatians must end.

Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, last night I joined the Ukrainian Canadian community on the steps of Parliament in celebrating the independence of Ukraine. Today on those same steps over 2,000 Croatian Canadians were asking their government why Canada and the world continue to refuse to recognize the independence of Croatia after 94 per cent of the people of Croatia and Slovenia voted for freedom and nationhood earlier this year.

December 4, 1991
A European community report just released accuses the Yugoslav army of targeting civilians, hospitals, and schools in Croatia in an effort to terrorize the population.
While Croatia must of course fully respect the rights of the Serbian minority, it is those of the Croatian majority who are being brutally denied. Canada must urge the United Nations to immediately intervene to stop the bloodshed. Canada must provide desperately needed humanitarian aid directly to the people of Croatia, and Canada must end its silence and ensure that the will of the people of Croatia and Slovenia for freedom, democracy and independence is realized at last.


UKRAINE
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, on December 1 the world watched a remarkable event unfold in Ukraine: the decision by a freedom loving people through a democratic process to join the world community as an independent nation.
Our Prime Minister realized the importance of this moment immediately and recognized the birth of the new republic of Ukraine.
The London Ukrainian community joins the chorus of millions around the world congratulating the Prime Minister and Canada. Congratulations, Prime Minister, for again demonstrating the kind of leadership Canada is renowned for throughout the world.
Will the Prime Minister exercise his bold leadership once again and now recognize the republic of Croatia?


QUEBEC'S ECONOMY
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, last week the federal government announced it would give Quebec $160 million over a period of five years. This means $32 million per year, or $5 per person per year in Quebec. It is not enough, considering the damage done to Quebec's economy by federal policies.
Furthermore, the critical comments of the New Democrats and Liberals were biased and inappropriate. Did Quebecers criticize the fact that the government sent $800 million to Western Canada? No, Mr. Speaker. Quebec merely wants its fair share of the taxes it pays to Ottawa. It does not want handouts and it only wishes it could keep all its tax money and spend it according to its own priorities.


ORGANIZATION OF ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to inform the House today of developments this week at a meeting of the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, in Paris.
The Minister of State for the Environment, led the Canadian delegation, was vice-chair of the meeting. The theme of this important meeting of environment and development ministers of the 24 member countries of the OECD was a partnership for sustainable development.
On Monday the Minister urged her colleagues from the OECD countries to work to develop new global partnerships to achieve sustainable development.
Canada is well positioned to lead in partnerships with private sector organizations, business, industry, labour, educators and institutions.
The central position and prominence of the OECD as an institution and of its member countries will cast it in a number of key roles leading up to the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development and beyond. Canada will continue to be active and committed to these initiatives.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if I could have the attention of the House for a moment.
As some hon. members know, for many weeks now on Wednesdays I have been coming in early so that prayers could be taken in time to begin Statements by Members exactly on the hour.
I cannot go ahead unless we have a quorum. I have sent messages. I am asking all hon. members to ensure that there is a quorum a few minutes in advance so that no hon. member is deprived of his or her wish to make a statement during the 15 minutes of statements and I really do need the co-operation of all hon. members.
December 4, 1991



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister met the premier of British Columbia who became the fifth provincial premier to call for a first ministers' conference on the economy. We also heard that Premier Bourassa of Quebec said he would be willing to attend such a conference, if it were likely to produce positive results.
As we see now that provincial premiers representing the three main political parties in Canada are ready right now to meet the Prime Minister to discuss economic problems, why does the government refuse to hold such a conference which might find a way to get out of this unending recession?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will not refuse a meeting with the premiers. He already met with some premiers last week and other meetings are scheduled for the coming days. A meeting with the premiers to consider the economy is possible.

The Prime Minister said yesterday that he would be reflecting on the advice of the finance minister who will be meeting with the provincial finance ministers on December 11 and 12. He will be reflecting on the views that have been expressed to him by the premiers with whom he has been meeting.
The Minister of Finance said in the scrum yesterday: "If he thinks a meeting would be beneficial, I would be happy to call it".


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the minister again. Yesterday the Prime Minister made a speech in Vancouver and he said, among other things, that "Canadians are going to have to fish or cut bait" about the future of Canada.
Oral Questions
I agree entirely with the Prime Minister. But if the Prime Minister really believes, as I do, that all Canadians must have the chance to say yes to Quebec and to say yes to Canada, why has he pulled the plug on the proposal that I made in good faith to have a national referendum where all the people of Canada can vote on the future of this country?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, according to Canadian Press, the Prime Minister said in Vancouver yesterday that the Speech from the Throne promised consultation with Canadians. The Speech from the Throne does not say what form that consultation will take. We are still looking at the various options. We have not ruled any out. But we are honouring that promise made in the Speech from the Throne.

Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition missed the response yesterday by my colleague, the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs, to the member for Annapolis Valley-Hants, but he made it abundantly clear, as has the Prime Minister, that all options remain open.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the minister who is replacing the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs. Would the government not be prepared right now to clarify the situation and to make people understand that what we want is a double majority referendum, where every region of Canada- the Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario and the west-could say yes to Quebec and yes to Canada at the same time? Why does the government not propose such a solution immediately since no one knows exactly what the government wants to do, which is creating confusion, and since it is high time to find a positive solution to save this country?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. Leader of the Opposition points out, he and his party have locked themselves into the position that there must be a referendum on a particular formula. What the Prime Minister and the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs have indicated is that we favour the broadest possible constructive consultation with Canadians. I put the emphasis upon constructive, in that any action that we take must be one that helps to unite Canadians and not to divide them or to polarize them.

December 4, 1991
Oral Questions
It is incumbent on all of us on all sides of this House to do what we can to bring Canadians into the process, to solicit their participation and to do what we can to unite Canadians, not to put barriers between them.


CANADA POST
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
The minister will know that Canada Post employees in London, Ontario are routinely asked to use someone else's name and social insurance number to do contract work for the post office after working hours.
Given that this action by Canada Post contravenes the Canada Labour Code, the collective agreement, the Income Tax Act and probably many other statutes of Canada, when did the minister find out about this practice and what has he done to stop it?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that Revenue Canada, through its matching programs, will identify any such potential problems or inequities that exist. We found out about those in recent days. We are currently investigating the matter to the best of our ability.
Upon the conclusion of the investigation, appropriate action will be taken. Every step to protect the individual is being taken at this present time.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the culprit here is not the employees in question. They were counselled by Canada Post and Canada Post has admitted to this publicly.
I have in hand here a cheque which was given to Mr. Mike Bellemy and the cheque is made to his mother, Audrey Bellemy, a senior citizen.

I want to ask the minister opposite what action the government will take not to punish employees but to reassure Canadians that Canada Post obeys the law?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, first of all, if the hon. member or any other member has any additional evidence to give to us, we would be happy to receive it and include it in the ongoing investigation.
I repeat to the hon. member and to Canadians who are affected by this situation that a matching program after the fact does take place and appropriate action will be taken. In any event, if the hon. member has any additional information I would be very happy to look at it.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
The Leader of the Opposition continues to talk about a referendum on the Constitution and the Prime Minister speaks of public consultation. But the country's future is not just the Constitution. You need only listen to people. The real problems are finding work and the economy.
This government's economic record is a complete failure. When will this government hold the only national referendum that really counts; when will the government call an election?


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in due course.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
The previous minister spoke about the broadest possible consultation. There is one form of broad consultation and every indication says that this government has failed in every part of this country and especially on the economy. When the government stood up in the past and said it was on the right track, we have to ask who it is speaking for: the banks that had a billion dollar profit or the $27 billion in corporate taxes that were not paid?
December 4, 1991

Who is the minister listening to because he is certainly not speaking for those Canadians who want full participation through an election? When will the government call an election for that full participation?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this type of political game does not amuse Canadians. What Canadians are looking for is consultation about the economy and that is precisely what we are engaged in with the prosperity initiative that is having meetings in communities.
I had a meeting in my hon. friend's community and I would say to her that it was a very successful meeting. People came out to that meeting, gave their views on how we should deal with international markets, how we should deal with training, how we should deal with technology and how we get investment to produce jobs in communities such as hers. It is that type of dialogue among Canadians that is going to generate the change of attitude that is necessary within the country.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we should move on.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
What Canadians want is action. Canadians are not getting action on the economy and they are not finding jobs. Today Statistics Canada reported that the number of jobs available has not changed from last month and in the last year the number of jobs available across this country has gone down from 12 per cent to 26 per cent. It means fewer jobs are available for Canadians.
The kind of action Canadians want is action on the economy and they want this government to do something. Every indication is that this government will not take-


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member would put her question, please.
Oral Questions


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: The government will take the action and so I say to the minister responsible: Will the government call an election and stand up and ask the people for their real opinion?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the fact that interest rates have come down over 6 percentage points since May of last year indicates action on the part of the government.
My hon. friend talks about the need to create jobs. There have been 101,000 jobs created since February of this year. So jobs are being created.
My hon. friend talks about what is happening in the economy. Housing starts have been above 150,000 now for six or seven months. They reached 200,000 one month during the summer. So things are changing.


Mr. Speaker:: I think we are going to have to move on.


CROATIA
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise two very compelling international matters with the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
First, the European community monitoring group has reported that violence against Croatians persists and that measures taken to stop the random terrorism of the Yugoslav army have failed.
I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, on behalf of Canada: Will she call for an immediate emergency meeting of the security council to ensure the UN force will be sent right away to protect the lives of Croatian civilians?
Second, will she personally meet with foreign ministers of the European community to discuss the intention and the timing of their recognition of Croatia and Slovenia?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first of all it is very important that we all recognize the horror of what is going on in Croatia and in other parts of Yugoslavia.
I have been in touch with our ambassador at the United Nations. I was in touch with him this morning. There is a security council meeting to receive a report from Cyrus Vance on his return from Yugoslavia. He is expected to be in New York tomorrow. He is spending another day in the region in a further attempt to ensure that the cease-fire holds. He and his number two man are in Croatia, in Zagreb.

Oral Questions
I have also spoken to our own ambassador in Yugoslavia and instructed him to seek permission from the Croatian authorities to visit Croatia himself and report directly back to me. I should say that no foreign ambassador located in Belgrade has visited Croatia, partly at the request of the Croatian authorities. Therefore, I have made this a personal message from myself to the Croatian authorities via the ambassador and I want a report back from him directly.


HENRIETTE HADDAD
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister should consider sending a special delegation to Croatia to examine the situation.
I also want to ask this question. On both sides of this House and throughout the country we all welcome the release of western hostages with one exception. A Canadian, Mrs. Henriette Haddad, is still being held hostage after six years of detention without much hope of being released.
I want to ask the minister why she personally has kept silent on this issue. Why has the Canadian government not had Mrs. Haddad put on the list of UN hostages that are being negotiated? Will she take action immediately, while there is still time, to have Mrs. Haddad become part of a deal involving western hostages who are to be freed this week?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have discussed Mrs. Haddad with the United Nations. My chief of staff has met with Mrs. Haddad's family. I should say that Mrs. Haddad's son visited a member of Parliament in 1985 about his mother's disappearance and then again in 1987. He was not in touch with us again until this year, even though we had searched for Mrs. Haddad through all our known connections, including terrorist organizations.
No organization in Syria or in Lebanon or in any other part of the region has come forward and said that it is holding Mrs. Haddad despite our efforts to locate her and to discuss-


Ms. Copps:: Put her on the list.


Barbara Jean McDougall: I sometimes wonder if the hon. member really does care about this.
We have followed this up with the United Nations. We have followed this up with all of our contacts through Syria and Lebanon and indeed through the groups that are known to hold hostages. There is absolutely no trace of Mrs. Haddad that we can find and we are continuing to pursue it.
 * *


AUDITOR GENERAL'S REPORT
Ms. Ethel Blondin (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the absence of the minister.
The Auditor General's report states that this government has never increased funding for aboriginal housing despite an increase in the aboriginal population three times the national average.
Will the ministers quit avoiding and neglecting their responsibilities and will they act by providing now the funding so desperately needed for aboriginal housing?


Hon. Monique Landry (Minister for External Relations and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I was asked a similar question yesterday by a member of the NDP, and it will of course be a pleasure to give the hon. member the requisite information. We realize that aboriginal communities have tremendous needs in terms of housing. Our investment in this area has already been very substantial, and yesterday I quoted some rather impressive figures which reflect this government's commitment to helping improve aboriginal housing. The government has spent between $120 and $140 million annually, and so far 3,000 new houses have been built. Funds have also been made available for the renovation of another 3,000 to 4,000 houses.
December 4, 1991

Oral Questions
That being said, we realize that we are scarcely meeting the demand. As the hon. member probably knows, we are involved in discussions. A report was produced by the department, and aboriginal communities are now examining the report. We are developing a new policy with these communities so as to respond more effectively to their very urgent needs.


Ethel Dorothy Blondin-Andrew: Mr. Speaker, before I continue with my supplementary I should say that whatever way we cut it, there is a 10,000 housing shortfall for the aboriginal people and that is from Auditor General, not me.
My supplementary question is for the associate minister of Indian and northern affairs. Education, as she well knows, is fundamental to the future of aboriginal Canadians. The federal government is obligated to meet the educational needs of all aboriginal students.
How can the minister justify capping the funding on post-secondary education to aboriginal people and how can the government refuse 5,000 students by creating a waiting list of those 5,000 students who have made it through high school, despite great adversity and through a very high drop-out list? How can the government justify this capping of funds?


Monique Landry: Mr. Speaker, I believe this government has recognized how important education is to aboriginal communities. Although the hon. member may not be aware of the fact, I am pleased to say that we have tripled the amounts provided since 1984-85, and we have almost tripled the number of students who now reach post-secondary level. We have increased our funding, and this year the budget for this category is $190 million and will increase to $242 million in 1995-96. We are also reviewing the problem that although all class I and class II spaces have been filled we realize that some students may have been left out. We will try to deal with this problem as soon as possible.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Transport.
Media reports in Winnipeg suggest that the government's own CN has a plan to ship grain and potash, bypassing Thunder Bay and the seaway, through Fort Frances and Windsor through U.S. rail links. This plan, if adopted and allowed to go ahead, will mean the beginning of the end of the port at Thunder Bay, the seaway and a number of ports in the province of Quebec.
I want to ask the Minister of State for Transport: Will she instruct CN to cease and desist?


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I share my hon. friend's concern about this, but I want to reassure him that there is no plan to ship grain through the U.S.
As he says, it was speculation. It is not true that there is no shipping of grain through those ports. It will continue to flow through Thunder Bay.


Iain Francis Angus: I have a supplementary question for the same minister, Mr. Speaker. I know that CN denies the existence of this plan, but it has denied the existence of other plans that have come true in the past.
As the holder of the shares in this Crown corporation the Government of Canada has the right to instruct CN not to develop any plans to bypass any Canadian ports in the movement of grain, potash or any other commodities. Is the minister prepared to take the responsibility on behalf of the people of Canada?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, I take my responsibility to the people of Canada very sincerely. CN has already advised the port officials at Thunder Bay that it has no plans to do this so there is no need for me to order it.

Oral Questions


SECRETARY OF STATE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State, but in his absence I would like to direct it to the responsible minister. The Auditor General of Canada was very critical of the process of contracting out translation in his department. It seems that 42 per cent of current translation requests are contracted out, and that by 1994 this percentage could be as high as 50 per cent.
The quality of translation is also criticized by the Auditor General, who says that the ability of the Department of the Secretary of State to manage its human resources is poor. My question is very straightforward. Does the government intend to take action as soon as possible to deal with the problems raised by the Auditor General? Will it set clear and precise management objectives for the practice of contracting out translation? Or, is it about to dismantle the Translation Bureau and sacrifice it on the altar of privatization? That is my question.


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: No, Mr. Speaker. We intend to keep this essential service, and it is an excellent one. Yes, we have started to take action, and I can say quite frankly that the department has accepted the recommendations and is quite pleased with them. It has already set up a task force that is to start on a complete and comprehensive review of the operations of the Translation Bureau. I am told that by next spring there will be a new plan on the basis of which a comprehensive strategy will be implemented for this service.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
The Auditor General has said that the contracting of translation services are badly managed. That is a serious accusation. He says that the government has lost a lot of talented employees, that the work climate is not good, that the morale is very low, and that there is a drop in the over-all quality of translations.
Canada with two official languages must have quality translation. As the percentage of translation done by the private sector is expected to rise to 50 per cent by 1994, what measures will the Secretary of State undertake to solve these problems of subcontracting translation services to people outside the Public Service of Canada?


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the minister who is away on government business today, I indicated that the department agrees with the recommendations of the Auditor General. I also indicated that it has already undertaken a number of very positive measures that will definitely propose new ways of delivering the service.
As far as the morale, I think it is a group that has performed brilliantly. It has given excellent service. It does translation service in perhaps 60 languages, from what I remember in my stay with that ministry.
I think this new little team that has been doing its analysis and work has been very well seen by those members. We certainly will do everything we can to protect the service that has been in place for 57 years.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Six and a half years ago the Minister of Transport stated in this House: "This government has no intention of downgrading the role of Winnipeg as a transportation centre and as an important part of the CNR".
Since that commitment was made-I use the word "commitment" loosely in this case-Manitobans have lost approximately 2,000 jobs, most of which were lost at the Transcona shops in Symington Yards.
With further reports that there could be as many as 1,300 other jobs cut throughout Canada, many which will be in Manitoba, when will CN management and this government stop bludgeoning the Manitoba rail worker?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, CN does have a mandate to act fiscally responsible and build a railroad that will continue to serve the people across this country. It has to make certain decisions in putting its fiscal plan together.
December 4, 1991

The article in the Winnipeg newspaper at this time is speculative and I do not think we should comment on it any further at this time.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
Four years ago the government made another commitment, this time to maintain Winnipeg as a rail transportation hub. No wonder people are nervous: all these commitments.
Since then we have seen approximately 250 rail jobs that have been lost, quite apart from the 2,000 CN jobs that I just mentioned. Some 1,000 of those jobs were lost during the last three years.
What is the whole agenda here? Why the secrecy? Why a little bit at a time? When will we know the total plan? When will the rail workers know where they stand?


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of Western Economic Diversification and Minister of State (Grains and Oilseeds)):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be a bit careful when he talks about Winnipeg as a rail hub, because it is.
Manitoba has the largest number of CN employees outside Quebec of any other region of the country, which is where CN is headquartered. Manitoba originates 8 per cent of the rail traffic and has 44 per cent of the employees.
In criticizing CN, they had better be careful that they do not leave the impression that CN is not welcome in Manitoba, because it is a very important part of Manitoba. It has the largest switching yard, the Transco-na shops, and the train locomotives at Gimli. It is and will continue to be a very important employment generator for Manitoba.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the minister responsible for native affairs or whoever is representing him today.
Oral Questions
In 1991 various departments spent an estimated $4 billion on basic services to the native community. According to the recent Auditor General's report, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development does not have assurances that these moneys are used for the purpose intended or managed with maximum efficiency. The same is true in the Department of Agriculture.
What course of action is this government pursuing in order to ensure that aboriginal people, farmers of Canada, are receiving the highest quality and most cost efficient services available?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to the Auditor General's report which put forward some questions about the expenditures, over $11 billion expended by the government on behalf of taxpayers to assist farmers.
I say to her that I know the policy of the party she represents: that farmers will have to do with less, that farmers will have to be part of the 15 per cent of the over-all reduction in government expenditures that her leader is putting forward, and that her leader has put forward a statement that the Government of Canada should trade off the interest of western grain exporters against the interests of those who operate supply managed industries in central Canada, Ontario and Quebec.
I say to her that this government represents all of agriculture. If the member really wants to know whether the expenditures that have been made have been efficient, she should ask the producers who received them.


Deborah C. Grey: Mr. Speaker, we are not talking about dollars and cents here. We are talking about the efficiency of programs that are in place and what long-term goals in terms of accountability this government has.


TRUCKING INDUSTRY
Deborah C. Grey: I turn to another subject now and ask the transport minister a question.
It has come to my attention that the Minister of Transport will be announcing a $2.7 million to $3.5 million grant to the trucking industry before this Friday.

Oral Questions
I have been informed that many decisions involving this grant have been made without consultation from important members of the trucking community.
We are talking about handing out grants to the trucking industry when so many, the Alberta Construction Trucking Association for example, state that these moneys would be better served to pay down the debt.


Shirley Martin: am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I really did not hear a question at the end of that statement, but I can tell the hon. member that we have been working with all representatives of the trucking industry for over a year now to come to plans that will indeed strengthen the industry and make it more competitive in the future, and we are continuing to work on those plans.


TREASURY BOARD
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Yesterday the Auditor General criticized the government for the way that it used public sector pension funds to finance the deficit. He estimated in fact that the loss to public sector pension funds was a billion dollars per year.
I want to ask the minister if he will guarantee in the legislation he is talking about bringing forward that public servants will not be asked to make higher contributions or accept lower benefits as a result of the billions that the government has taken from their pension assets over the last 30 years.


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member has been sleeping all these years but the integration of this fund with Treasury has been there since 1954. He wakes up because the Auditor General said that if we had invested the money on the market we probably would have got a little more money. But we would have to borrow the equivalent amount outside thereby increasing the interest and costing Canadian taxpayers more money.


ROYAL CANADIAN MINT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister answering for the Royal Canadian Mint where public service workers have been on strike for almost seven weeks now.
In the past the Minister of Labour has been asked in this House to appoint a mediator and he said that he could not do that without a request. The fact is that under the law he can appoint a mediator, and I am asking the government now to make the commitment that the Minister of Labour will appoint a mediator so that the people can get back to the bargaining table in this dispute and the strike in Winnipeg can come to an end.


Hon. Paul Dick (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, it was unfortunate that last year the workers of the PSAC union turned down a 5.5 per cent offer. This year with times changed they have not accepted any of the offers and they have been going on a very slow strike, a few going out at a time.
At the present time there is no reason for the Minister of Labour to appoint a mediator unless at least one of the sides indicates it has an interest in that.


COMPETITION POLICY
Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology.
Recently the Quebec provincial government announced an action plan to revitalize its current economic situation by setting targets toward economic renewal. There were no public consultations.
This minister and the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced a prosperity initiative with consultants fanning out across the country, visiting towns and asking local groups to sponsor these community discussions.
Recently Michael Porter released a report, Canada at the Crossroads, and told Canadians what to do.
Why is this minister continuing with this exercise? What does he expect to hear that he has not heard before? Why does this minister not just introduce his new policy platform on competitiveness?
December 4, 1991


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think one thing that Canadians have told us very clearly is that it is important for us to consult on these issues in order to seek out their views on the range of matters that affect our competitive position.
What we are seeking here is not just a list of things for government to do or all governments to do, but a list of proposals for all stakeholders, all participants in the Canadian economy, whether it is government, management, labour, educators or scientists.
What we are hoping to do through these consultations is generate a broader understanding of the issues involved here, and through that broader understanding seek a change in attitude that will be supportive of the broad range of measures that will be needed in order to support science and technology, training, retraining, investment, how we do in domestic markets, and how we succeed in penetrating international markets.


Mr. Nowlan:: A supplementary, if there is such a thing in this House. There certainly should be a supplementary to a government question.


FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the feisty minister of employment. I am sure he will want to acknowledge that the Atlantic fisheries aid package is being run in a very unfair way. For example, people who because of the disastrous fishing season were obliged to reactivate their old UI claims are being excluded from the aid package even though their claims are now running out.
I wonder if the minister would indicate what steps he is prepared to take, in the interests of fairness, to correct this very unfair situation?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think the minister of fisheries indicated earlier this week that the program which was announced was being administered according to the rules that were laid down. He also indicated that
Oral Questions
there were some problems with some people with a long attachment to the fishery who were not qualifying.
The question of the hon. member does not allow me to know exactly what he is talking about. If he is talking about the plight of fishermen, it is difficult. That is why we have come up with this $57 million support program for fishermen. If the hon. member would care to be more specific, maybe I could help him.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had been very specific with the minister. People who are on claims which are now running out are being prevented on a technicality from qualifying under the program. I ask if he will take that under advisement to see if something can be done.
I have a supplementary question. Many people who have demonstrated a clear connection over the long term to the fishery are also being denied access to the program despite the utterances of his colleague, the minister of fisheries. They are being denied because they do not happen in this year to have sufficient insurable weeks.
Will he undertake to review the program's guidelines so that the people who really need this assistance this winter get it while there is still time?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, I can indicate to the hon. member that I will be pleased to look at the question of those claims he mentioned. I will look at it personally.
As for the other issue, whether to revisit the guidelines, I am surely capable of doing that but I do not want to raise false expectations in Newfoundland. I will do as the hon. member asks.


ETHANOL
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
Farmers in Ontario have repeatedly asked for clarification of the federal policy and for market entry support for grain based ethanol. They have been waiting for years.
Can the minister assure me and the Canadian farmers that the wait is over?

Oral Questions


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's ongoing interest in this important issue is to be recognized.
I answered a question of a colleague in the House last week talking about ethanol and the reasons why Canada supported ethanol and the production of that product. It helps us in the environment. It also helps us use a renewable comment in the grains and oilseeds sector.
As the hon. member is aware, there is one commercial ethanol production plant in Ontario at this time. Some provinces have put forward initiatives which would help the establishment of plants to produce ethanol. I hope that we are able to work co-operatively as we have in the past federally and provincially to continue with this important project.


COMPETITION POLICY
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which is supplementary to the very penetrating question from the member for Cambridge and is to the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology.
I quite agree that consultations with representative and responsible people are very interesting. Can the minister please explain to this House and the Canadian people how this public consultation of 150 consultations in communities across the country- the first was a trial experiment in my riding when the two questions were "Your wish" and "How to"- is going to contribute to international competitiveness after two and a half hours of dialogue on those interesting two general questions?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his not quite so penetrating question.
I know that my hon. friend supports the approach that we are taking to consult with Canadians. I think the meeting in his riding was a good meeting.
What we are trying to achieve here is, as I said in previous answers, to get Canadians talking about this
range of issues that are out in the consultation papers that my hon. friend, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, and I have put out on behalf of the government.
If the member had attended the workshops that were a part of that meeting, he we would have seen that there was good dialogue-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we will have to move on.


FISHERIES
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Transport.
Today a very serious conflict exists in the lobster fishery in southern Nova Scotia. One of the concerns of the lobster fishermen is that they feel they are not getting fair access to air cargo space for transport to the lucrative Christmas European lobster market.
I ask the minister if she will immediately look into this matter to make sure that air cargo space is available on the east coast for all the lobsters to go to the European market that can be shipped.


Shirley Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries.
A report in one of the newspapers in southwestern Nova Scotia is that the quotas for 1992 in the Scotia-Fundy region in the groundfishery will be increased.
As the fishermen in the area need to know immediately before they are forced to transfer more quotas to companies, will the parliamentary secretary look into whether or not these quotas will be increased and tell the people in the Scotia-Fundy area if they will be?


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member opposite, yes, we will look at that immediately.
December 4, 1991


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I was starting to get worried. My question is for the Minister of the Environment.
Canadians have waited patiently through four years of federal delay for comprehensive national standards to clean up Canada's biggest polluter, the pulp and paper industry, and today learned that the Minister of the Environment has offered the industiy exactly what it wanted: a six-year toxic dumping holiday in all cases until December 1995 for special cases and no target or timetable for phase-out of organo-chlorines despite the support of his own department for such action.
Will the minister at least admit to Canadians that the over-all level of toxic organo-chlorines will continue to rise in our environment, in our water, in our fish and in our ecology as a result of the minister's decision to not decrease?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, that is false. Let me start with the member's assertion that we have offered some sort of a toxic holiday for a period of six years. I do not know where he takes those numbers from. In fact, we are bringing forward regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act for dioxins and furans that will come into effect for mills constructed before 1990 in January of 1994 and for mills constructed after 1990 immediately.
Those regulations will have the effect of reducing the amount of organo-chlorides to below two kilograms per tonne, a net reduction of 600,000 tonnes of organo-chlorides at 1980 levels for the year 1993. That is a result of our regulation which, by the way, compares very, very well to any similar regulations that the hon. member will find anywhere around the world.


Mr. Speaker:: A very, very, short supplemental.


James Ross Fulton: My supplementary, Mr. Speaker, is for the same minister.
Yesterday the Auditor General identified misleading information and overstatement of penalties as being
Privilege
serious problems in environmental protection reports from the minister's department.
Will the minister at least give Canadians today, now, an absolute assurance that there will be total compliance and enforcement even with the weak-kneed regulations he and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced today? At least give us that.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to the Auditor General's report of yesterday. What the Auditor General said in fact is that some information that had been given through three different instruments, including part III of the estimates, could be. He did not say it was-he said, it could be. In recognition of that he was referring in fact, I may point out, to estimates that went back to
1990-91, the previous year for which there were corrections.
The second thing that he singled out in terms of a report was a report that was published in 1988 and for which there was also corrections and the Canadian Environmental Protection Act for which there was also corrections.
I may also add, and that concerns the second part of the member's question, that the government announced today under the authority of the green plan a $55 million initiative for enforcement of our environmental regulations, in reaction to our new regulations and the Auditor General's report.


Mr. Speaker:: This will be the last question. I know the hon. member for Argenteuil-Papineau wishes to be heard, but I will not have time. Perhaps tomorrow. The hon. member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications.
In the maze of financial restraints being experienced by the CBC, one redeeming recommendation from its president is the call for more predictable and flexible financial management capabilities.
For example, it is difficult to imagine how any $1 billion corporation could be run in today's uncertain

December 4, 1991
Routine Proceedings
world without some reasonable ability to borrow money for short-term operational needs or for amortized investment capital facilities.
Would the minister be willing to consider introducing amendments to the appropriate legislation so as to provide the CBC with a limited borrowing authority to more efficiently conduct its affairs on a business basis?


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the hon. member's suggestion. Obviously, when you are looking at the running of the $1.3 billion corporation, it is important to be able to have flexibility and the capacity to run your business on a business-like basis.
The government is currently looking at the whole issue of the long-term financing of the CBC. I will certainly take the hon. member's suggestion into consideration at the same time.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege based on an apparent infringement of the freedom of speech of the House of Commons as it applies to witnesses before parliamentary committees.
This fall the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development has held hearings on the Industrial Research Assistance Program of the National Research Council. During these hearings members of the private sector IRAP advisory board gave testimony which was critical of the National Research Council and its president.
In an apparent reprisal I have learned that the National Research Council has disbanded the IRAP advisory board and effectively has terminated the members of this board who appeared before our committee.
I wish to table in the House today copies of letters sent to members of the board informing them of the NRC's decision. Mr. Speaker, if you wish I can send you material detailing the disagreement between the IRAP advisory board and the president of the National Research Council.
I believe however,-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute. I have been listening carefully to the member and I will let him continue, but I am having some difficulty seeing how a decision made at the National Research Council is a breach of privilege of the hon. member or of this House. Perhaps the hon. member can assist me.


David Berger: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will address that point immediately.
It is essential that parliamentary committees hear witnesses who are free to give honest testimony without fear of reprisal. This apparent message, the disbanding of this committee and the message that the NRC sends, possibly acting with the approval of the government, cannot be allowed to stand.
Potential future witnesses cannot-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment, please. Perhaps the hon. member would take his seat for a moment. I may ask him to help me further. The hon. member is accusing somebody of having forbidden them or made it impossible for the committee to hear them. That might indeed be a very important matter. But unless I am not fully au fait as to exactly what the hon. member is getting at, I wish he would come to the exact point.
Just because the National Research Council may or may not decide on what it does or does not do with a group within it, that in itself is not privilege. On the other hand, if there was a deliberate design to stop members that a committee had invited from appearing in front of that committee, and if that design was carried out in .a completely improper way, then maybe we have a point. It might very well have to be resolved by the committee first.
But I want to get the facts.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, you refer to a deliberate design to stop witnesses from appearing. Witnesses appeared before our committee. They were members of a private sector advisory board who undertook their responsibilities on a voluntary basis. Their board has effectively been disbanded.
The point I wanted to make to you, Mr. Speaker, was that this affects freedom of speech, not only in the sense that future witnesses appearing before committees may be left in a position where they can be intimidated, but there is a further potential breach.
December 4, 1991



This is not only about freedom of speech being limited by the threat of retaliatory action but about public confidence in our parliamentary institutions. Witnesses simply will not come if Parliament does not defend their right to speak out.


Mr. Speaker:: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. member.

At the moment I see no privilege. At the moment I would ask the hon. member to take this representation back to the committee, and it may well be that as a consequence of that there may be a question of privilege to bring before the Chair. But at the moment it is not there.
I am going to carry on. I thank the hon. member for his courtesy.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the members' attention the presence in the gallery of Raphael Shakhbazian, Minister of Grain Products, from Armenia.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table a document which highlights the glowing record of achievement by Canada's aboriginal peoples in restoring their very real tradition of economic self-sufficiency.
This document is an 18-month status report on the progress under the Canadian Aboriginal Economic Development Strategy, which constitutes a partnership for economic development between the government and aboriginal Canadians.
Routine Proceedings
On behalf of my colleagues, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs and the Minister of Employment and Immigration, whose department also delivered this strategy, I am pleased to report on the progress made to date and reaffirm the government's commitment to continued efforts at developing aboriginal economic self-sufficiency.


FINANCE
Mr. Murray W. Dorin (Edmonton Northwest):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Finance, in both official languages.
In accordance with its order of reference of Tuesday, October 8, 1991, your committee has considered Bill C-18, an act to amend the Income Tkx Act, the Canada Pension Plan, the Cultural Property Act, the Export and Import Act, the Income Tax Conventions Interpretation Act, the Thx Board of Canada Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act, the Canada-Nova Scotia Offshore Petroleum Resources Accord Implementation Act, and certain related acts, and has agreed to report the bill as amended.


BILL C-38 REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE E
René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of Legislative Committee E on Bill C-38, an act to provide for the continuance of Telesat Canada under the Canada Business Corporations Act and for the disposal of the shares therein of Her Majesty in right of Canada, with amendments, in both official languages.
This is my first report as a committee chairman and I would like particularly to thank all members of the committee who made it possible for us to deal with this matter in a very appropriate fashion.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]

December 4, 1991
Routine Proceedings EXCISE TAX ACT MEASURE TO AMEND


Svend Johannes Robinson: for leave to introduce Bill C-325, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act (mobile home).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the goods and services tax definition of mobile home to remove the size specifications which are set out in the definition. The effect of the amendment would be to ensure that a unit which is occupied as a home should be exempt from the goods and services tax no matter what size it is.
Of course this would be an interim step until the GST is ultimately abolished by a New Democrat government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Mr. Robinson moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


ACCESS TO INFORMATION ACT
Svend Johannes Robinson: for leave to introduce Bill C-326, an act to amend the Access to Information Act (corporations).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide that the Canadian Council on Animal Care should be subject to the requirements of the Access to Information Act. This would provide for a greater degree of openness concerning the care and the use of animals in research.
Although most animal using institutions are public, using public funds for public benefit, the system is not accountable to the public. Therefore, this bill would ensure that these scientific research establishments using animals in research in fact drop the veil of secrecy and are open and accountable to the public.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Mr. Robinson moves that the bill be now read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


PRIVATE BILLS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, after the usual discussions with hon. members, I would ask the unanimous consent of the House for tabling a motion that a late petition be deemed to have been received.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to table the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the motion reads as follows:
That, notwithstanding Standing Order 132, the petition for private bill from the Metropolitan Insurance Company received TUesday, November 26, 1991, and reported upon by the Clerk of Petitions on November 27, 1991, be deemed to have been received within the required timeframe.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure today to present a petition signed by numerous residents of Ontario, particularly from Seeleys Bay, Sydenham, Harrowsmith, Kingston, Mississauga, Merrickville, Norwood, Peterborough, TVveed, Foxboro and other communities in this province.
December 4, 1991

These persons are concerned about the government sellout of Canadian interests in the GATT negotiations and particularly the possible sellout on article XI. Were there a significant change, there could be destruction of Canada's system of marketing for farm products.
These people are concerned that the government, having shown so little backbone in the past, will sell out Canada again in these talks. They call upon the government to hold our Canadian system up as an example to the world and protect it in those negotiations.


Murray Dorin: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today to present a petition calling upon Canada to officially recognize Ukraine's independence and to immediately establish full diplomatic relations with the government and people of Ukraine.
I have received a number of these petitions prior to the Prime Minister's announcement yesterday recognizing Ukraine as an independent state. Unfortunately only this one was certified correct pursuant to Standing Order 36.


Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to present a petition signed by 100 Canadians from the greater Toronto area.
The petitioners are also from Hamilton, Beamsville, St. Catharines, Grimsby, Sarnia, Oshawa, and a great many are from Bradford, Ontario.
They are petitioning Parliament to urge the Government of Canada to give genuine support to the people of Ukraine by officially recognizing Ukraine's independence and establishing full diplomatic relations with the government and people of Ukraine immediately following a positive confirmation vote in Ukraine's referendum on December 1, 1991.
I know that all these petitioners, as well as you and I, Mr. Speaker, were most pleased that the Prime Minister announced on Monday, December 2 that Canada had officially recognized Ukraine as an independent state.
Routine Proceedings NORTH THOMPSON RIVER


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen- Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition.
The petitioners in this particular case are from throughout the Okanagan Valley. They advise that a company has announced its intention to dam the North Thompson River at Valemount to divert water to sell to San Diego, California.
The petitioners point out that the federal government does not prohibit the diversion of Canadian rivers into the United States of America.
They are petitioning Parliament to urge the Government of Canada to state categorically that it will not permit our fresh water rivers to be dammed and diverted into the United States of America and to state that our Canadian rivers are not for sale.


Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I regard it an honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of residents of the riding of Elk Island who support the initiative of the Government of Canada to officially recognize the independence of Ukraine.
The petitioners also urge the government to continue its efforts to establish full diplomatic relations with Ukraine.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour and duty to present on behalf of a number of citizens of my constituency a petition which calls upon the government to recognize Ukraine officially, to do what it can to establish relations quickly and to help Ukraine to immediately become a functioning nation.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a number of petitions today with about 400 signatures from people who live throughout the Okanagan-Shuswap area.
The petitioners are quite concerned that Multinational Resources has an intention to dam the North Thompson River at Valemount and divert the water into the U.S. market.

Routine Proceedings
The petitioners are concerned that under the provisions of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, the export of bulk water from Canada to the U.S. would in fact enshrine Canada's obligation to maintain such exports even in the event of domestic water shortages.
They are petitioning and urging the Government of Canada to state categorically that it will not permit fresh water diversions into the U.S. and to state categorically that our Canadian rivers are not for sale.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, on another matter, I also have a number of petitions from British Columbia residents with respect to the funding of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.
These petitioners are urging the government to consider the restoration of full and proper funding to the CBC so that it can fulfil its mandate and its role as the heartbeat of Canada. They are asking the government's priorities in terms of decreased funding for Canadian institutions be reconsidered.


Mr. Bob Speller (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, on this White Ribbon Day, I have a petition on behalf of the parents of Nina de Villiers who want to draw to the attention of this House and this Parliament the fact that crimes of violence against persons are serious and abhorrent to society and the need to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.
These parents are now in the other place talking about the gun control bill. They wish the attention of the House to be brought to these petitions.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on August 24, 1991 the Ukrainian Parliament declared Ukrainian independence and the creation of an independent and democratic state of Ukraine. On December 2, they reaffirmed that declaration.
Over one million Canadians of Ukrainian descent have for a century sustained their ideals in freedom and democracy for an independent homeland.
Tthe Governments of Canada and Ukraine signed an historic declaration on relations between Canada and Ukraine on September 22, 1991 to develop and strengthen contact in the spheres of politics, the
economy, science, technology, education, sports and other areas.
Therefore, the Ukrainian Canadian community calls on the government to not only officially establish relations with Ukraine but also to help Ukraine at the United Nations gain full recognition.
On that, congratulations have to go to the Ukrainian Information Bureau for its excellent work on this issue.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if, perhaps, the question has already been answered. I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could give us an update with regard to Question No. 138. He has been asked on several occasions to provide the House with an update.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to say to the hon. member that I have not made quite as much progress as I had made the last time I talked to him about this question. We are now down to four departments or agencies that are outstanding. I hope we can clear that up very quickly and get that answer to the hon. member.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, perhaps, since the parliamentary secretary has been so co-operative in trying to expedite this particular matter, he could give an undertaking to the House that he will attempt to obtain the answer to the question before the week is out.
If there should be some substantive reason as to why that answer cannot be forthcoming, such as an act of God or whatever that may be, perhaps he would be so kind as to give us an undertaking that the information he does have at his disposal could be made available to the member who has asked the question and thereafter the four remaining departments which obviously would submit the information to the parliamentary secretary could then submit the information to the House and to the hon. member. I think that would be in the spirit of generosity, and since we are approaching Christmas, I am wondering if the parliamentary secretary could give us that undertaking.
December 4, 1991


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, my friend makes a very interesting suggestion. I have to admit that there is a reluctance on this side of the House to partially answer questions. We like as much as possible to give a complete and thorough answer.
I can assure the hon. member that I will indeed try to find out what the problem is in these four outstanding departments or agencies. I will indeed try to have an answer for him by the end of the week.
I would certainly hope that we would be able to answer it at the very least before the House rises December 13.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-20, an act to amend certain statutes to implement the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 1991, be read the third time and passed; and the amendment of Mr. Walker (p. 5662).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I remind hon. members that there is a 10-minute maximum on speeches, without questions or comments.
[English ]
Yesterday the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing- Pembroke got the unanimous consent of the House to have the floor for 20 minutes. The hon. member has 16 minutes left.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20 is an act to amend certain statutes to implement the budget tabled in this House on February 26, 1991. Bill C-20 was introduced to imple-
Govemment Orders
ment four particular or special initiatives outlined in the February 1991 federal budget.
One of the most important changes would provide amendments to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act and extend the cap on Established Programs Financing transfers to the provinces. What that actually means is that transfer payments from the federal government to the provinces will not increase, not even to pay the rate of inflation or the additional costs of those programs to the provinces.
The provinces are going to have to come up with the additional money to cover inflationary increases and the other increased costs related to post-secondary education and health care. That has some very serious consequences for Canadians. It also says that the federal government is walking away from its responsibility.
Another proposed amendment would dramatically increase unemployment insurance payments for both employees and employers.
The other two amendments would provide for the capping of sessional allowances and a continued freeze on tax transfers to the provinces collected from public utilities. So there is another capping by the federal government on those programs.
With Bill C-20 the government hopes to extend the freeze on those Established Programs Financing transfers for an additional three years. Imagine, for another three years, not just this year. Established Programs Financing transfer payments are made to the provinces, as I said, to support health and higher education.
It specifically means that in those two areas the provinces are going to have to come up with greater sums of money to cover the natural increases that they have to pay in administering post-secondary education and medicare even to the extent of covering the inflation rate itself. We can see where the government is going here.
How can the provinces cope? As I said yesterday, they can either cope by increasing taxation or simply cutting back on the services. The government is saying: "If you cut back on services, provinces, we are going to punish

December 4, 1991
Government Orders
you". I will get around in a moment to how that is going to take place.
We know what effect this is going to have on John Q. Public in Canada. As I said, to ensure the adherence to the standards of the Canada Health Act, the government has included a provision in this bill whereby it could withhold, reduce or deduct either money from the cash portion of the transfers or from any other transfer payments made to the provinces, not just for post-secondary education and health services. Any other services to the provinces can be deducted if the province does not maintain national standards in medicare.
The federal government is saying to the provinces: "We are not going to pay to maintain the services of medicare nationally across this country. We are going to make you, the provinces, pay for it". We know that some provinces will not be able to afford to do this.
The constitutionality of this clause, providing for the withholding of other transfers, is being challenged in the courts. A law firm reviewing the bill has suggested the bill would exceed the federal government's authority to intervene in health policy.
Going on, I just want to lay some groundwork. The former Minister of Finance gave notice in his February 19, 1991 budget that the freeze on these program entitlements announced in the 1990 budget for 1990-91 and 1991-92 would be extended to 1994-95, that is the next three years. At that time the finance minister said-and listen to this very carefully; this has been said before, but it bears repeating and repeating-"I recognize that limiting the growth of transfers under Established Programs Financing raises concerns about the ability of the federal government to continue enforcing national medicare principles under the Canada Health Act". He said that on February 26 at page 18 of his budget speech.
However, he went on to assure Canadians that "the principles of the Canada Health Act will not be compromised". Further to this pledge, the former Minister of Finance stated: "Legislation will be introduced to ensure that the federal government continues to have the means to enforce these national medicare principles". That too was said in the budget speech.
The question has to be asked here: If the federal government does not pay enough money into the national medicare scheme to pull its own weight, how does it
have the right to cal! the tune? That is precisely what is being challenged in the courts.
The Minister of Finance spoke again in February of this year. What he said is contained in clause 23(2) of Bill C-20. The beginning of that particular clause of the bill states, and I will not read all of it because to many people it will be a bunch of gobbledegook, including to myself:
In this section, "federal payment", in respect of a province, means a payment by Canada to the province under this or any other Act of Parliament or any fiscal arrangement or agreement between Canada and the province, whether enacted or entered into before or after the coming into force of this section.
That is a blanket coverage.
This legislation goes far beyond withholding any transfer fund entitlements as a means of deterring the Canada Health Act violations. Provinces within Bill C-20 have the potential to undermine the full range of federal transfer programs. In order to punish a province that does not comply to the standards laid down by the federal government, which itself is not willing to pay its own way, innocent individuals will suffer. Provincial health care practices will now have a direct bearing on child care, welfare, municipalities, aboriginal people, farmers, students and numerous other individuals and groups that stand to be denied programming that is cost shared by the federal and provincial governments. I included municipalities.
The municipalities across this country are going to be hard hit because of the lack of transfer payments from the federal government to the provinces. The provinces will have to tighten up their expenditures and will probably give less money to the municipalities to help them with their shared cost programs. The whole thing will fall at the feet of John Q. Taxpayer at the local level.
Some people will say: "Well, it is going to rest on his shoulders anyway". However, the fact remains that we have a federal government that should show leadership but it does not want to show that leadership. It is passing the burden on to the provinces and on to the municipalities across this country.
What repercussions on other items could this reduction have? It means that, in accordance with the provisions of Bill C-20, the federal government can penalize provinces that do not maintain its standard of medicare by interfering with a whole host of programs. It can take
December 4, 1991

not only from transfer payments but from other payments going to the provinces.
First, equalization payments alone are estimated to provide $8.4 billion in 1991-92 to provinces without sufficient revenues to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. The federal government could deduct from that if national standards of medicare are not met in individual provinces.
Territorial financing is estimated to provide $1.41 billion for 1991-92 to the territorial governments to enable them to provide the range of public services in the north provided by provincial governments. Can you imagine those programs to the territories being cut? What base of taxation do they have to make up the difference? It is an horrendous piece of legislation that penalizes the regions of Canada, particularly those that are in greatest need.
Grants in lieu of taxes are paid to provincial and municipal governments by the federal government instead of paying taxes on federal and diplomatic property. These grants are estimated at $344 million in 1991-92. They could be deducted.
Public utilities income tax transfer payments represent 95 per cent of the federal income tax collected from certain privately owned public utilities transferred by the federal government to the provinces. This transfer is estimated at $280 million in 1991-92.
Statutory subsidies are the oldest transfer payments and are paid to each province under the terms of Confederation. These subsidies are estimated at $36 million for 1991-92.
The federal government shares the cost of each province's income maintenance and social services programs on a 50/50 basis under the Canada Assistance Act. That is important. The federal contribution for 1991-92 is estimated at $6.4 billion. In this time of recession we can imagine what it means to individual provinces and municipalities if the federal government backs off from paying its full contribution to social welfare at the local level in this country at a time when social welfare is increasing for the municipalities across this country.
Government Orders
The reeve of one municipality informed me that his welfare budget has increased by 2,000 per cent compared to what it is normally.
How can small municipalities cope with the federal government cutting its share of payments to the provinces and the provinces therefore not having enough money? At the same time the provinces have to increase taxes in order to cover post-secondary education and health costs.
What about the crop insurance contribution? In this day when the farmers of this country are going through the most horrendous times they have faced since the early thirties, or possibly in the history of Canada, can you imagine the crop insurance contributions, estimated at $207 million for 1991, possibly being cut because a province is not going to pay the federal share to keep up the cost of post-secondary education and hospital care?
There is also the Young Offenders Act, which I mentioned yesterday. There is a whole host of others but a bill went through third reading in this House last week covering the amendments to the Young Offenders Act in this country.
Under that legislation young offenders while in prison will have to receive medical treatment to assess when it is safe for them to be back out on the street. The big question in the minds of Canadians today is: Why are people who then cause other problems released prematurely? We need the medical services in those prisons to assess when it is safe for an individual to go out on the street.
The federal government is passing legislation that says to Canadians that it is going to make their streets safe and at the same time it is not providing the money to administer the program itself. That is passing the buck and it shows the lack of a responsible attitude by the national government of this country.
We know that the government is increasing the Unemployment Insurance Act by 24.4 per cent.
You are giving me the high sign, Mr. Speaker. I will abide by your ruling with one minute to go.
As I have said before in this House, the federal Government of Canada was given the responsibility for the unemployed in this nation in 1940 as an amendment to the BNA Act. That was a result of the Rowell-Sirois commission report of 1937, which was the most in-depth

Government Orders
study into poverty, economic conditions, and taxation jurisdictions between the federal and provincial governments ever made in Canadian history.
Today this government is increasing unemployment insurance rates by 24.4 per cent but it is not paying for it. It is placing the responsibility of paying for the entire program on the employer and the employee. That is not just passing the buck. That is neglecting your constitutional responsibility as the Government of Canada.
It was introduced to help those municipalities, to help those poor areas of Canada. Now this federal government is passing the buck to them and making them pay. Before this is over we must have another in-depth investigation into the tax sharing policies of this nation because the provinces and the municipalities are being put to the wall and they cannot afford it. It is up to the national government in Ottawa to show leadership on this and ensure that the transfer of taxes is carried on so that these programs are funded. Otherwise we should not have the audacity to pass the legislation in this House of Commons.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I understand that I only have 10 minutes at this point in time in the debate.
This particular bill has numerous difficulties for the constituents I represent in this Chamber. I want to outline some of those concerns.
The bill which was laid before the House some time ago is a result of trying to implement the February 1991 budget. There are a number of things this bill intends to do.
The first intention is to make amendments to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, and to extend the cap on the Established Programs Financing transfers to the provinces.
Post-secondary education is of fundamental importance to a society which wishes and hopes to be internationally competitive. Many of our young people from coast to coast wish to pursue their post-secondary studies not only so that they will be qualified and their skills be enhanced but also to give them an opportunity to make a meaningful contribution to Canadian society.
The unfortunate part of this particular bill is that the transfer payment cutbacks and the capping on various payments to certain provinces have provided some very serious hardships for our students across this country. So much so that in my own constituency, in my own university, the University College of Cape Breton, students have been told by this government that any student loan they receive has 3 per cent on the front end taken from that loan.
I think I have indicated before that this amount of money to the casual observer does not look like an extensive amount of money. However, if you are taking 3 per cent of $3,000 it is rather sizeable in terms of what students can purchase with that money, whether it is supplies for their particular class, transportation to and from the university or transportation from the university to their own homes if they should happen to live outside that particular province or that particular area. It is a tax on young people who are trying to acquire a post-secondary education.
It is somewhat hypocritical of the government to say that on the one hand it wants to have meaningful consultations concerning competitiveness, as it said in the prosperity document tabled by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Students really are- and I do not wish to flatter their egos unduly but the fact remains-our best hope. Young people are our best hope for the future in terms of what they can do to improve Canadian society. I think that Bill C-20 acts to impede the progress of students and of young people, particularly as it relates to post-secondary education.
The government will say, and say quite rightly: "Well, we are still giving an increase in the amount of money going to universities". However, what if you were anticipating a certain level of increase and guaranteed that particular increase and then someone came along and said: "I am sorry, it is going to have to be x minus y, that is what you're going to get"? That throws budgets of provincial governments off and certainly has a negative effect on the administration of universities, whether in terms of providing research moneys for professors, providing facilities to needy students, or the actual fact that some individuals will have to lose their jobs as a result. There is only so much money in the pot.
December 4, 1991	COMMONS
Education is one thing and post-secondary education is very, very important. However, Bill C-20 goes on to talk about health in the respective provinces. There is a certain pot of money made available to provincial governments in have not provinces such as Nova Scotia to carry on and implement the principles of the Canada Health Act. Any time money is taken out of that pot, it directly affects the prospects of the health care system.
What do I mean? I mean that there will probably be less money for research. However, if there is not to be less money for research and health care they will steal it somewhere else. Sometimes it is felt not by the medical doctors but by people such as the janitor who works in the hospital. I know many janitors who work in hospitals, whether in Glace Bay, New Waterford in my constituency, Sydney or Sydney River. They are the ones who will feel the effects because lay-offs will have to occur and overtime will be curbed. They are the ones on the health care scale who will, in effect, be cheated as a result of Bill C-20. I do not think any of us in this Chamber can overlook the fact that these cutbacks, as announced by the government through Bill C-20 and its February budget of 1991, will have traumatic effects on what Canadians believe is the most important social program ever put in place.
I have tremendous difficulty with the attempt of members opposite to erode the fundamentals of medicare. I know government members will say they are not doing that. They say there is no way they are not eroding the fundamentals of medicare. But remember the pie and all the services in the pie. When you shrink the pie, something has to happen to research or the maintenance provided in the various hospitals. That is what happens.
Bill C-20 also goes on about unemployment insurance premiums. In the few minutes I have left, I want to tell the Chair that I have never seen such hypocrisy by a government, as demonstrated in Bill C-20, as it affects the UIC premiums.
Let us not forget that the hon. member for St. John's West, in the last federal election, stated on national television that there would be no changes to the unemployment insurance program in this country. Now, under the auspices of Bill C-20, we have an increase in UIC premiums of 24.4 per cent.

Government Orders
Some commitment, some promise by members opposite. It will affect the average working Canadian and the average employer in the various small businesses across this country. Some of them do not have huge profits like General Motors or some of the major corporations in this country to pay this additional tax. Some of them are operating from week to week, from month to month. It is the individual who runs the dry cleaning store, the pizza shop or drug store who is going to feel the negative effects of the increase in the UIC premiums. It is so unfair. It is hypocrisy at its worst. The Minister of Finance, when I questioned him, would not be candid enough to indicate there would be no increases in 1992. Now we are going to have more of an increase, not just 24 per cent but more than that.
In conclusion, I thank you for the opportunity to make this intervention. I hope hon. members opposite will see their way to vote down the provisions of Bill C-20, which is a Draconian piece of legislation. I am sure the hon. minister would want to agree with me, only for the provisions of cabinet solidarity.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, in the brief time I have for my remarks today, I would first of all like to refer to Bill C-20 and what it means to the provinces of Canada, the people within the province of British Columbia, my home province, and my riding of Okanagan- Similkameen-Merritt.
Bill C-20 is a continuation of Bill C-69 which was so drastic in its cutbacks to post-secondary education and health care delivery to Canada and the provinces, but in particular to the province of British Columbia.
This particular bill continues until fiscal year 1994-95 the cutbacks to the Established Programs Financing, those transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education and health care within those provinces.
Over that period of time, as I understand it, the cuts amount to almost $9.5 billion. They will cost the province of British Columbia over that period of time almost $1.2 billion.
That money has to come from somewhere. We either cut back on our programs, or we have to increase taxes within our separate provinces or municipalities.

December 4, 1991
Government Orders
I have heard through letters from my constituents and discussions with other members from all sides of the House that this particular bill, the continuation of Bill C-69 and Bill C-20, is the commencement of the death of medicare as we know it.
Certainly members on the other side of the House may say that we are being alarmist and are trying to scare people. I think it is about time the people of Canada realized they have to wake up and ensure that this government is not elected again.
It has continued on the path it has taken over the last years since it was first elected in 1984. Now we see the erosion of our education programs, our health care system and life as we know it in Canada. I think we have to become somewhat alarmed. We have to start speaking out.
In the last poll I saw, only 16 per cent of the people of Canada believe this government is doing a good job and would vote for it again. I predict that will carry over into the next election, whether it be in 1992 or 1993, and this government will get its come-uppance.
The people of Canada will not stand for the continued erosion and attack on these programs. My parents and their parents fought for them over the years and the young people of Canada take them for granted as part of what makes up Canada.
The riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt has triple the percentage of senior's population as does the rest of Canada. Almost 33 per cent of the residents of Okanagan-Similkameen, certain areas in the Okanagan Valley and to some extent the boundary country and Similkameen Valley, are over 65 years of age.
If you look at the retirement population, that figure jumps to almost 50 per cent of the population.
How does this bill, the cutbacks in the transfer payments and Established Programs Financing in the area of health care alone, affect my area? It is devastating. This bill in its substance is looked on by the people of my riding and myself as a Draconian measure. It can only continue to hurt those who need to be assisted the most such as those with lower and middle incomes, and those on fixed incomes such as the seniors in my area.
I am alarmed. I am very upset at the prospect that the people in my riding, in British Columbia and across Canada are going to be so devastated by the terms and direction this bill is taking Canada and our health care system.
I have heard many problems from people coming to me over the last six months to a year. In one case a woman in Oliver, British Columbia said her husband has been on a medical waiting list to have a necessary knee operation, but he cannot get into the hospital because of the cutbacks in the care. He is not a priority and yet this gentleman is crippled. He is unable to work. They have an orchard, and his wife must do the orchard work. They are not a young couple, yet they are being penalized by the terms and conditions set out by this government with the cutbacks in the health care systems.
I would also like to talk about the cutbacks in post-secondary education. In my riding there are three colleges: Selkirk College, of which I am an alumnus; Okanagan College, which is central to the Okanagan Valley; and Caribou College which goes into the Merritt region.
Those areas are directly affected. As the cost of post-secondary education increases, it becomes increasingly more difficult for the average Canadian, the average wage earner, to assist their children, daughters and sons, to go on to university. Universities and colleges are forced to increase fees substantially. The costs of books, room and board and transportation continue to rise under the policies of this government.
We try to encourage our young people to get their education in our region where it is slightly cheaper. Yet by doing this, we are forcing those young people out of post-secondary education and into the job market.
Unfortunately, because of the policies of this government, there have also been cutbacks in the Canada Assistance Plan and cutbacks are probable in the area of welfare.
In order to get unemployment insurance, the students have to work longer periods of time. Because their qualification period is longer, their benefit period has been shortened. It is difficult to get jobs in areas like the Okanagan, where the rate of unemployment is substantially higher than the national average. In Merritt, for instance, in the last couple of years the rate of unemployment has increased to something like 34 per cent. I just heard this week that one of the major employers in
December 4, 1991

Government Orders
the city of Merritt, one of the major sawmills, has laid off a number of employees. They could be laid off from one month to four months or perhaps longer.
They lay the blame on the fiscal and monetary policies of this government-the GST and the problems that it has caused. They lay the blame on the differences in the extra taxation through unemployment insurance premiums. They blame this government for the fiscal policies of the high dollar rate and the high interest rates. It was predicted two years ago in GST prehearings that we would be in a major recession now and there would be cause for concern because of the implementation of the GST, particularly in January 1991.
Unfortunately those predictions are coming true. If we predict further, through the implementation of this bill, we will have more of our young people on the unemployment and welfare rolls. We will have fewer and fewer of our regular, ordinary Canadians able to educate and improve themselves. We will have less and less money for research and development. There will be fewer opportunities for these young people to get reasonable jobs in their future.
Am I being an alarmist? Yes, I am, because I think the people of this House of Commons, the people on the other side of the House, have to wake up to the fact that we can no longer continue with these monetary and fiscal policies as set out by this government. We have to create jobs. We have to ensure that our older people have the proper health care into their golden years and our young people have the opportunity to go to university. Then they will have adequate jobs and money to ensure they can bring up families in an environment that is conducive to happy and healthy living.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, before this Bill C-20 gets rammed through by a Tory majority that must have its head in the sand, there are a few things that need to be said. I see the gentleman for Fraser Valley East is at least sputtering. He will probably get some sand in his mouth as he does it but as least he is conscious. He is with us and that is to his credit and our surprise.
Let us understand what all the fine words mean here on paper, what this bill is going to do. Let us take the words of some other people rather than me because I see the minister of multiculturalism looking at me with a jaundiced eye and he suspects I am about to say some partisan things.
I will indulge him today and instead talk to him on behalf of organizations that have been set up to advise the government. He will have heard, for example, of the National Council of Welfare, one of the bodies whose function it is to advise the government in these matters. Here is what it has to say about the import, the substance of this bill. I see the minister nodding as though he knows what the National Council of Welfare has said. Oh, that he would have heeded what it had said because it is a federal advisory board and he should sometimes take advice of people in the know.
It said that Canada's medicare system will die and federal cash for post-secondary education will dry up by the end of the century unless Ottawa stops its pattern of slashing transfer funds to provinces for health and universities.
The same organization goes on to say, and this is the fear of the National Council of Welfare, that national standards will disappear because the poorer provinces will be unable to provide adequate health services.
There is only one unfortunate turn of phrase in that entire quotation. They talk about poorer provinces. With pride, I happen to represent people from the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. We have never subscribed to the notion that we are a poorer province. We are a province with less cash flow than some of the other provinces but do not ever characterize us as a poorer province in terms of the resources that we contribute, not only in terms of our contribution to the Gross Domestic Product but in terms of our people resources.
Do you know, Mr. Speaker, that there are more native bom Newfoundlanders living outside Newfoundland than there are living in Newfoundland. So we are enriching the country all over from Fort McMurray, I say to my friend from Cochrane-Superior who must have the good fortune to have some Newfoundlanders up in his own riding. He nods yes.

Government Orders
All over this country, there are people from Newfoundland in Haldimand-Norfolk and in the riding of my good friend from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt. All over this great country there are people who have come from Newfoundland and Labrador to make those other parts of Canada richer. I just wanted to get that off my chest, Mr. Speaker, but I know the National Council of Welfare meant no offence when it used the term "poorer provinces". I understand, and you understand what it meant.
Its meaning here is that national standards will disappear because provinces are less able on their own to finance the cost of medicare or post-secondary education. In the case of those provinces-and I guess that is what it meant by the term "poorer"-the national standards will disappear because of the inability of provinces such as Newfoundland and Labrador and other provinces, not poorer but not as flush in cash as some provinces like Ontario or British Columbia and Alberta.
If the minister is not thoroughly convinced to our point of view, maybe he would like to hear from one other reputable national organization, the Canadian Council on Social Development which maintains that these measures and this bill will effectively-here are the organization's words-strip the country of its social infrastructure at a time it is most needed for both constitutional and economic reasons.
These are two reputable national organizations which monitor these matters, which are far more informed in these matters than you and I are because they make it their business to be on top of what the impact of this bill will be.
I take their advice. I take their concerns seriously. If the National Council of Welfare or the Canadian Council on Social Development did not exist, I will tell you what does exist at all times, and you could think of parallels in your own riding. I will tell you whether or not these councils exist or are there to tell us the pitfalls of this bill. There are the people in Grand Beach. Yes, I have a Grand Bank, but I also have a community called Grand Beach. The people there are the best advisory council I have in terms of what this bill will do to transfer payments, post-secondary education, access to medicare and the unemployment insurance system, which I will come to in a moment.
The people in Grand Beach, Monkstown, Cape An-guille, Petits, Sheaves Cove, Codroy, Burgeo, Fortune, and the other communities which make up the 158 communities in the riding, know first-hand how it limits the access of their young men and women to get a university education. They know how it limits their grandmothers, aunts and in-laws when it comes to elective surgery because of the cutbacks in medicare being triggered by this bill and its predecessor bills.
Yes, its predecessor bills, because as you are aware, this is not the first time the Minister of Finance and his successor, the former Minister of Finance the now minister of trade, with the blessing of the gentleman from Baie Comeau, the Prime Minister, have put the axe to social programs. It is not the first time they have reneged on commitments in terms of maintaining our infrastructure, our social net, our medicare and our post-secondary education. They started it in 1985.
I cannot quote the figures for all of the country. For my own province alone, in those 11 fiscal years from 1985 through to 1995-96 which this bill covers, it will cost the treasury of Newfoundland an aggregate total of $845 million on Established Programs Financing alone for health services and post-secondary education. Newfoundland is a small province of just 580,000 souls and that is $845 million that it will not have to spend on post-secondary education or health services.
I see my time is nearing an end. I thank you for the signal. Let me just say a word in conclusion on the matter of unemployment insurance premiums.
If the crowd over there ever has the guts, as we say back home, to face the electorate one more time, I suspect they will all want to run and find alternate forms of work. I am sure that is what the gentleman from Fraser Valley East will do. He does not look to be suicidal and probably will not even run but if the government members ever have the gumption to face the electorate one more time, the electorate's litmus test for this crowd will be: Have they put their money where their mouth is?
When the government wanted to ram through changes on Bill C-21, it undertook not to tamper with the basic unemployment insurance program and not to increase premiums in rough economic times. Is there anybody over there who has not heard about the rough economic times? Do you know that this bill would increase premiums by 25 per cent, and this is only the first kick. The government has already indicated it is going to go for
December 4, 1991

another 7.5 per cent as soon as it gets this one rammed through.
The public of Canada is absolutely fed up with this crowd talking all the time out of both sides of its mouth. It says with one mouth what it is going to do, what it promises to do, and then proceeds to do the exact opposite.
I do not expect my friend from Fraser Valley to be excited about this, although he seems to be. I do not expect him to agree with it. I ask him if he will be honest and get up-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. Your time has expired.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. friend from Burin-St. George's. He launched into the stern end of his speech, as we would say, on a subject that I had not planned to speak on. Since he was cut off, and rightly so of course, I want to elaborate on his emotion and his concern with the unemployment insurance aspect of what this bill stands for. Just to refresh our minds, one of the things Bill C-20 will do is increase unemployment insurance payments for both the employers and the employees.
We have to go back and check the history of unemployment insurance. I do not want to go back to 1940 when the Liberals introduced this as a safety net for Canadians who would be out of work. I want to go back four years. At that time unemployment insurance worked this way: the government paid 26 per cent, the employee paid 31 per cent and the employer paid 40 per cent more than the employee and that worked out to 43 per cent.
A few weeks before the election was called I recall that the Prime Minister and hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, in response to concern that the UIC business would be changed because of the level playing field and the free trade agreement, categorically denied that it would be changed, leaving no room for concern, leaving no room for doubt.
People were telling me: "Look, did you hear what these people say? Don't go around being a fear-monger and creating doubt in people's minds". I had some doubt myself on this occasion, but six months later the hon.
Government Orders
Minister of Employment and Immigration introduced measures that eventually led to Bill C-21. Then all my doubts were certainly removed that the level playing field was about to be launched.
One week before the general election-and this is factual-the government cut UI payments by 17 per cent and raised benefits by 7 per cent, denying that the timing of this had anything to do with the impending federal vote. Weekly earnings dropped from $2.35 for each $100 of insurable earnings down to $1.95 the week before the election. Six months after the election Bill C-21 was introduced which took the government entirely out of the unemployment insurance business.
In other words, it has contributed 26 per cent to look after the administration of the fund and to make sure that the money was always there to pay and that people would not have to have their premiums raised. It got out of the whole business. The government does not now contribute.
What has happened? As a result the 1989 budget, not long after the election, increased the employee premiums back to where they were, by about a 10-cent difference back to $2.25 for the employee for $100 of insurable earnings. I will just stick with the employee because the employer went up accordingly. Consistent with the provision of the labour force development strategy which later became Bill C-21, the budget iterated-this is the budget of 1989-that the government would now not contribute to the plan.
In the next budget that concerned unemployment insurance, the budget we are discussing here today, Bill C-20, The Budget Papers-and I just read them-stated in part: "The government will continue to contribute to the financing of the program in difficult economic times when it is inappropriate to raise premiums".
If the times have been harder economically to the people I represent-and I know a lot of people are represented on this side of the House-I do not know when they could be any worse. The government is going back on its word. It has raised them from $2.25 to $2.80. Now they are going to be raised again.
Even before the budget is approved and formal approval is given for something that happened on July 1 that is raising the UIC rates by 24 per cent, and even as

December 4, 1991
Government Orders
we debate it in the House today, on January 1 it is going to be raised another 7.1 per cent.
I am not sure how we could look at that as any kind of a promise that was kept. In fact I think it is the reverse. It is a promise that has been broken on three separate occasions. It is broken by the trust that if times are rough you will not have to pay the premium. That is exactly what it said.
What does this mean? The latest one, which we are not discussing today and which we will have to discuss some other time, means a tax increase of $204 a year for somebody earning $40,000. For the average person in my riding it is going to cost them between $60 and $95 a year. Mr. Speaker, you may say that is not very much. It is a lot when you do not have the money.
I do not know where we are heading with this, quite frankly. I have spoken on the dreadful effect, not that it is going to have but that it already has on health care. I have a lot of seniors in my riding. They have enough to worry about. This is a concern that has gone through every one of the almost 70 seniors homes in my riding. In the last year I have visited them all.
Turning to post-secondary education, most of us have spoken to students in schools. We see them on a regular basis. I write to them and get a lot of letters from them. They are concerned about the apparent lack of financing that is going to take place when this bill is passed.
I do not live in a dream world. I hope that very few of us do in this House. I know that money does not grow on trees. I know that the country is in trouble. We are broke. The Conservatives have been trying to pull us out of this deficit. I am not going to mention with substance that they blame it on the Liberals, but they do and that is unfortunate. After seven years in power I think it is going to be very difficult to blame another government in power seven years ago.
It is like taking over a ship and after a year you have been captain running it aground and you blame it on the previous skipper because he did not have the engine set up properly. Nobody would believe that and nobody believes the Tories when they say that we are responsible for the debt doubling by two and a half times, at least.
Those three concerns are the ones that concern me the most. The money can be found in other places. There is enough flexibility. We know how the government finances its expenditures. It can be found in some other discretionary funding. Perhaps they will have to nickel and dime it. I am not a nickel and dime person, quite frankly. I do not like doing it because it is symptomatic of other problems. Time does not permit me to get into that.
It is these three areas. Unemployment insurance has increased 54 per cent since this government came to power in 1988. That is double. There is the eventual removal of our medicare system. We have just started the first chip at the block. It is going to be chipped away. I pointed out to the House yesterday that if things keep going the way they are by the year 2000 there will not be any money left for medicare. The third one is cutting off our nose to spite our face by reducing the funding to the provinces for post-secondary education. It may in the short term save us money, but in the long term it is going to make us less competitive and put us in a position where it is going to be more difficult to prevent us from sleep walking into extinction.
I believe that is what is happening right now. I do not like it. I am concerned about it. I hope the expressions of my concern are not seen as just a partisan belief or a chance at government bashing. If I have established any reputation I think it is one for not so doing.
I do not like what is happening in this bill. I know my colleagues do not like it. I hope that there will still be some chance for a reprieve. We are through report stage. I appreciate that, but certainly when this bill comes up for passage in the near future I can assure you that it will not get my vote. I do not think we are doing the proper things to keep the country on an even keel and to look after the poorer people, the common man and the common woman. We are giving them another tax on top of the GST and 30 other taxes. I believe there has to be an alternative.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, it is kind of routine to rise in this House and say something to the effect that it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-20. However it is not. I am tired of having to speak to bills like Bills C-96, C-69 and now C-20. It is really quite bizarre, if not hypocritical, that I left a meeting of the committee on industry, science and technology where the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology is defending the government's prosperity through competitiveness agenda which focuses, as I think you know,

on the importance of science and technology and education and training in Canada's economic survival.
After seven years in which this government has continually cut back on training, on education and R and D, suddenly the government has awakened to the fact and wants to awaken the people to the fact that the priorities for future economic development in R and D and education and so on must be seen by them to be a priority in spite of the failure of this government itself to recognize these as priorities.
I really want to focus on the issue of post-secondary education, but let us look at what the government members say in this prosperity agenda. They say that they want to eliminate illiteracy in the country. They want to quadruple the number of trainees produced in industry, but most significantly in the context of this debate they say they want to double the number of scientists, engineers and mathematicians that our university system produces.
Yet this is a government that has followed in the trail of the Liberals in producing legislation that has been subject to debate in this House, covered in Bill C-96 and Bill C-69 and now Bill C-20, which will lead to an accumulated cut of $9 billion to the post-secondary education system.
As I said they were not pioneers in the field. We will recall the changes made by the Liberal governments between 1977 and 1984 which themselves led to a bleeding from the post-secondary education system of $5.7 billion.
As we are now trying to address the whole question of how Canada's international competitiveness can be improved, we are left with the legacy of the previous government and the actions of this government continued in Bill C-20. The effect already has been catastrophic. Yet they have nerve enough to go round this country talking to people, trying to convince people that they should understand the significance of training and education, when this government utterly failed to act in respect to education in spite of its great importance.
Government Orders
The impact has been tremendously severe. It has affected accessibility. It has affected quality. It has affected costs as these costs have had to be picked up by students and faculty in the various provincial post-secondary educational systems.
Let us look at the example of Newfoundland where its single university, Memorial University, has had to cut its budget as a result of this government's actions by $10 million. It has increased tuition by 5 per cent and it has cut 100 employees.
Along with what this government has done with the challenge program and the student loans program, we have a situation at the University of Alberta where the tuition for the last two years has increased by 35 per cent. They now have there food banks for graduate students. This is because of the failure of this government to recognize that even in the context of a deficit there are spending choices that can and must be made. One of the priorities that should have been recognized by this government was expenditure in order to improve the capacity of our people to bring their knowledge, their training and their skills to the economy to make Canada more prosperous, because its people were more capable of exercising their talents.
The deficit has been used as the excuse when in fact the deficit is a function and a reflection of the deteriorating economy of this country and the failure of this government and previous governments to recognize what must be done to ensure that we have products we could sell to other nations and to our own people in competition with what is imported into our country.
Bill C-20 is another example of failure. It is an example of hypocrisy. Even now as we are moving to cut financing of post-secondary education, we have the minister down the hall saying that Canadians must recognize the priorities that this government and people must have if we are to become competitive. It will cut $9 billion from post-secondary education.
What the minister said and what this government has been doing for the last seven years is unparalled in the history of Canada. I do not know whether it is unparalled in the strict sense. It is unparalled in its failure to have actions match words. It is unparalled in the destruction

Government Orders
that has already been brought to bear on this country's capacity to survive economically and indeed politically.
Bill C-20 is another sign that this government does not know what it is doing. It will never learn and should be cast out of office.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I take this opportunity today to discuss the effect Bill C-20 has on one aspect only. That is the health care system of Canada.
Much of what I intend to say I have borrowed from very succinct and very well researched articles by Carol Goar of The Toronto Star. I certainly recommend this series of articles to my friends across the aisle, particularly to the minister of health. They are well research and very informative articles.
I have listened to the debates on the issue carefully and must confess that I am dismayed at what I have been hearing. I am particularly upset with this government for being so short-sighted in its approach in failing to provide the leadership to ensure that we retain an effective public health care system for all Canadians.
It seems to equate effective public health with dollars. What we have heard is if this government loosened the purse strings or gave the provinces what they wanted, our health care system would be automatically fixed. We all know that this is simply not correct.
Even if all financial constraints were lifted today, our health care system in Canada would still be in some difficulty.
We have just celebrated the 30th birthday of Canada's health care system. It is one of the best in the world. Canadians do not have to face the prospects of financial ruin should they get sick. Being poor in Canada does not deny you from being treated by a doctor or being admitted to any hospital. We can all be proud of the rigid standard of care to which most health professionals are committed.
In the last 30 years, provincially and federally, with a constantly expanding economy, governments mostly did not question the growth of the cost of the medical care system. Today we find this experience of the last 30 years can no longer continue. This government and every province are faced with increasing deficits. The deficit of this government continues to be in the neighbourhood of
$30 billion. Our national debt now far exceeds $400 billion.
Thirty-seven cents of every tax dollar collected in Canada today does not pay for one doctor's visit, does not pay for one medical procedure; 37 cents does not pay for one drug administered, does not pay for one hour of nursing care or does not pay for the use of one hospital bed. Out of every dollar collected, 37 cents goes to pay the interest on the national debt. That means we have 63 cents remaining to administer to the affairs of this total country. Health care, as we all know, takes a substantial amount of the balance.
What I am trying to get at is what we have to do and what this government must do to try and find a new way. That is where this government has failed. We must begin to restructure our health care system and this again is where this government has failed. We must develop a comprehensive national strategy and again this government has failed to do that.
A government cannot unilaterally cut health care costs in this country, as it is trying to do with the legislation that is before this House today. A federal government must take the lead with its counterparts in the provinces and the municipalities to bring into line and to bring into focus the competing bureaucracies, federally, provincially and municipally, all that are involved in the health care system.
A good federal government must take the lead to define what a health care system truly is. Remove those social programs that have become a financial albatross around the necks of the health delivery system and we should take health related matters right out of the health budget so that we can truly define what it is.
A good federal government must take the lead to be rigorous in assessment, to prove the value of new technologies, to prove the value of expensive drugs and other costly health procedures.
A federal government must take the lead to monitor carefully treatments that may be done in homes of Canadians or clinics rather than the use of expensive hospital beds.
A federal government must take the lead to establish systems that monitor Canadians who have preventable diseases so that they can find out what these diseases
December 4, 1991

are. They can no longer be ignored until they reach the expensive crisis stage for treatment.
A federal government must take the lead to monitor national services in each community so that there are no longer any expensive duplications in the delivery of health services. Long-term joint planning is an absolute
necessity.
A good federal government must take the lead to make the moral and ethical decisions as to what will be allowed by way of delivery of health care to all of our citizens.
A federal government must take the lead to advise all Canadians that user fees will not be tolerated anywhere in Canada. In this way, assure all Canadians, especially seniors and the poor, those less fortunate, that they should never have to worry about the extra costs associated with ill health.
A federal government must take the lead to renew the health system from within, using those invaluable human resources we already have within our health care system.
A federal government must lead the way in all these important areas, working in close co-operation with the provinces and the municipalities, all which are already involved in the very important health care field. We need a government that is willing to make difficult decisions necessary to bring discipline to the system of the delivery of health care in Canada. Only then, only once we have made those strong and bold decisions, can we retain our health care system. We can then not only retain our health care system but strengthen it and make it stronger than it is today for ourselves and for all future Canadians.
A Liberal government is committed to the principles I have set out in this short essay. The cutting of transfer payments is not the way to do it and this government should be embarrassed for thinking that it is.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to engage in debate at this stage of this bill. My hon. colleague opposite has spoken quite eloquently in consideration of the provisions that are put forward.
We in the Liberal Party are extremely concerned about the erosion of federal transfers to the provinces in this country. We are extremely concerned that the government is seriously affecting the ability of provinces right across this nation to be able to provide services of national standard no matter what the wealth position of the particular province is on a given day, or a given
Government Orders
month, or a given year. We are very concerned that the government through its actions and through some of it own fiscal mismanagement has transferred the burden of its debt down to the poorest of the poor.
The problem that we have is that at some point freezes, cuts, and holdbacks from programs always have the effect of hurting the people that least can afford to bear the burden of that hurt. One of the big concerns we do have is the effect of the cuts to Established Programs Financing. The cuts to Established Programs Financing in this country have been absolutely awesome over the last few years.
The government has initiated a freeze on transfers to the provinces under EPF. The government at the same point in time will indicate that it is fulfilling its commitment under the Constitution Act to provide for equalization payments and to ensure that equalization payments are sufficient to allow every single province in this country to be able to deliver programs of national standards.
The effects on the freezes on EPFs that this government has undertaken have been absolutely dramatic. When we were studying another bill at pre-study, Bill C-22, the Bankruptcy Act, we had a submission put to us by the Canadian Hospital Association. The Canadian Hospital Association presented us with a brief and I indicated to them at that time that the particular brief may not be that appropriate for the bill we were studying at pre-study, Bill C-22, but I certainly knew that it had a great deal of relevancy and that it would be debated and that I wanted to quote it in this particular place.
The erosion of health care, the erosion of the ability of every province to have universities of national standards, the ability of each and every province to be able to deliver health care of national standards has been severely threatened by this government.
If you look at the effect of EPF savings over what was anticipated with the regular growth of EPFs, the dollar amounts are startling. Between 1986 and 1996 the federal government will have saved $29,998 billion. Nearly $30 billion it has cut from the anticipated transfers to the provinces for health care.
That is shameful, Mr. Speaker. This is at the same time, if you look at it, that provinces like Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, or for goodness' sakes provinces like Saskatchewan, have not seen their lot in Confederation get any better. In actual fact, in relative terms, their

December 4, 1991
Government Orders
disparity against the national average economically is getting worse.
Instead of recognizing that the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that transfers to the provinces are sufficient to meet that objective in our Constitution Act, that equalization payments shall occur to ensure the programs of national standards are able to be maintained, what does it do during this period of decline in the poorest of the poor provinces? It cuts back.
It is not as easy as the government would have us believe, that it can walk forward and can say easily: "Well, Nova Scotia, we have cut back on what you expected us to transfer for health care. You will have to make it up somewhere else". "Newfoundland, look we are sorry about this but we cannot give you as much, but you are still supposed to be able to deliver the same standard of health care to your people as was provided by the Government of Ontario, or the Government of Quebec, or the Government of Alberta". Thirty billion dollars cut because of freezes on EPFs.
The health care system in Canada is in peril. Provincial governments who want to ensure that universality of health care is maintained in their jurisdictions have been put against the wall. What are they to do?
In a period of 10 short years the federal government has deprived the provinces of Canada of $30 billion that was to go toward the delivery of health care services. Just a few weeks ago the Conservatives got up on their hind feet, bayed at the moon and said: "We are going to talk about prosperity. We are going to inflict prosperity on the country with new initiatives". Their new boondoggle was to go around and consult Canadians about prosperity-
Anybody who has an ounce of sense in their head knows that the prosperity and competitiveness of any nation is directly linked to the quality and level of education provided to its citizens. When a country decides that it does not have the money to invest in education for its young then five or ten years down the road you will see a decline in the competitiveness of that
nation, a decline in the per capita output, and a decline in the quality of life in that country.
The government likes to talk a good deal about inflicting prosperity. That is its latest buzzword. The facts are that the cutbacks this government has undertaken between 1986 and 1996 will see $12,109 billion cut in the transfers to the provinces that allow every province across this country to have affordable post-secondary education of national standard.
This government's 1986 to 1996 program of cutbacks has ensured that education and the dream of a post-secondary education has become a dream that only the wealthy in this country can afford. That is what this government has done.
Nova Scotia is not a rich province but we have a heck of a lot of resolve down there. We have some of the finest universities in Canada, and they have been there for a long time. My colleague from Saskatoon who taught at one of those universities knows that is the case. I think he taught at Saint Mary's University. In the good old days at Saint Mary's University, the students could come and get a small student loan and know they could get a quality education. The tuitions have had to go through the roof.
At Dalhousie University, just down the road from Saint Mary's in Halifax, the students basically had to barge in and occupy the senate building while the administration of the university was trying to figure out how to grapple with rising costs because it is not getting the money from the federal government.
As much as I am concerned about health care, I know that this government will use every single opportunity it can get its hands on to cut those essential transfers to provinces, the lifeblood of many of these provinces, allowing them to maintain programs of national standard.
The government says: "We are concerned about medicare". If it is so concerned about medicare and about whether or not there are going to be user fees in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick it should not come in with punitive legislation that will allow the government to walk in and withhold funds in other areas in which it has already cut back. If the government is truly interested it should not be introducing Draconian legislation like we currently have before us and are debating. If the govern-
December 4, 1991

ment is truly concerned about the erosion of health care in Canada it should not seek to penalize those provinces it has driven to the brink as a result of its cutbacks.
The Conservatives should recognize that they are the authors of Canada's misfortune in our health care field, not the provinces. They should remove the freeze on EPF funding that they themselves have imposed. It is that freeze, not the provinces, that has jeopardized the universal medicare program a Liberal government introduced and which has served this countiy so well.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to say that it is a pleasure for me to take part in this debate because it is not.
I feel obligated because what we are discussing here today is yet another characteristic of the present Conservative government and its determination to further erode the fiscal arrangements between the federal Government of Canada and the various provinces.
Bill C-20 is really a bill to transfer debt, not payments, from the federal government to the provincial governments in this country. Then the provincial governments are forced to pass on that debt and that debt burden to the municipalities.
Now, instead of the federal Government of Canada assuming its debt responsibilities here in Ottawa, the buck stops at the council chamber of the various cities, towns and villages across this country.
It is manifestly unfair and dangerous that we should be engaged in this kind of buck passing from the federal level to the provincial and the municipal levels. The people at the municipal level may not be able to understand or conceive of billions of dollars but can certainly understand, conceive of and appreciate cutbacks in the realm of hundreds of thousands of dollars as seen at their level.
First, I would like to point out that we are not curing any of our economic ills, problems and challenges in this country by passing debt from the federal government to the provincial governments, and they in turn to the municipal governments.
Second, it is absolutely disgraceful that a federal government should continue to cut back on the amounts of money it passes on to the provinces for the specific purpose of post-secondary education.
Government Orders
It is a well-known fact that the best universities in our country today are suffering badly from a lack of funding. It is a well-known fact that our libraries, research facilities, teaching capabilities and our learning environments across this country are suffering from a lack of proper funding.
That means that not only are our universities not living up to world-class status but various faculties and departments within universities are losing their world-class status. I am referring to such eminent universities as the University of Toronto, McGill University, Queen's and so on.
This is not a criticism of the academic capability of the teachers and students in those institutions. However, it is a fact that all institutions of higher learning in our country are suffering as a result of a very unwise policy on the part of this federal Conservative government to cut back in that area which we should be pumping more funds into, namely the research and development that industry and commerce will need in this country if we are to survive in this increasingly competitive world.
We have to make certain that more money is pumped into research, not only research and development but in skills, training and basic educational upgrading.
I represent a constituency that has been severely hurt by this recession. Yet when I look at the number of persons drawing unemployment insurance I see that the proportion of those on UI today simply drawing unemployment insurance and not in training or retraining programs is exactly the same as in 1981-82.
It has not changed one iota. We have not improved the retraining and upgrading of skills during this recession compared to 10 years ago in the 1981-82 recession. In other words, this government has not learned anything.
It talks about competitiveness and it talks about globalization, yet it is not prepared to make a concerted effort to improve the funding for research and development on the corporate side or improve the amount of funding going into job skills, job training and basic elementary educational upgrading on the worker side, the so-called adjustment side. This comes at a time when we are suffering not only from a severe recession but from all the strains and stresses brought upon us by the free trade agreement with the United States, which will be made worse if that trade agreement is expanded to include Mexico. That also is an area in which this government has been most unwise and injudicious in its

December 4, 1991
Government Orders
spending practices virtually since 1984, but certainly the last couple of years.
Finally, the issue of medicare has been raised by speaker after speaker on this side. Nobody is getting up on the other side to defend the government's position on cutbacks to the provinces that will adversely affect medicare in this country, but certainly speakers on this side of the House have mentioned it time and time again, today and in previous days during this debate.
The Canadian medicare system is undergoing stress and is having problems, not all of which are financially based but a great proportion is financially based. We fail to understand the vision that brought in medicare, not just the dollars and cents, but the vision behind medicare. Medicare was originally conceived as not just a humanitarian approach to helping the ill and curing the sick but as a concerted, philosophical effort on the part of previous governments to make certain that all Canadian citizens, regardless of income or social position, regardless of what assets they might possess, had equal access to the very best medical treatment this country had to offer.
That is a basic moral and philosophical commitment this government has forgotten. This government is looking at medicare through the eyes of an accountant and an accountant only, not through the eyes of those of us who look upon medicare as one of the foundations of social policy in this country.
When you lose sight of the moral and philosophical aspect of medicare it is very easy to sit back with an accountant's pen and, over a very short period of time, maybe three, four or five years, see medicare disappear as a social medical program. Before we know it we are going to have user fees. We are going to have all kinds of added costs to our medicare system that will eventually return us to the system I recall from the 1950s when if you had money you had the operation but if you did not have the money or asset you could not have the operation.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I am being accused of spreading scare tactics. That is not the point. The point is that already medicare is beginning to fail. American critics of our public medicare system are using those arguments to fight the more progressive liberal forces in the United States that want a publicly funded medicare system in their country.
When Conservatives across the way accuse us of scare tactics all they have to do is look to the arguments being used in the United States by their fellow conservatives in that country against the medicare system. Their arguments are based on facts that are evolving out of this government's eroding of proper funding for our medicare system.
It is totally unacceptable, and the people of Canada know it, that this government should continue to erode medicare. We are a country that is aging. As the population gets older it is going to become more insecure if people know that they have in power here in Ottawa a government that is no longer morally committed to public medicare in this country.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to speak again on this bill now that it has been through committee and is back in the House. This is a bill that demonstrates the fundamental approach being taken by the current government to this country which is contrary to our whole history, contrary to the sense of sharing and creating equal opportunities for all Canadians which has been our tradition since its founding.
I want to speak briefly about some of the programs that are going to be seriously damaged by this bill. I want to start with the fundamental principle that I think should apply when we look at programs like education, medicare, unemployment insurance, young offenders services, the general sharing of revenues between the federal and provincial governments and down to the municipal and community life of this country.
The fundamental principle which this government likes to tout and talk about, but seems to have a great deal of trouble actually respecting when it comes to implementing legislation, is the simple statement that our most important resource as a nation is our people. I have heard that often from the government benches.
December 4, 1991

Every time I see legislation, it is legislation that ignores that principle entirely. Let me touch on some of the principles of this bill that I think do that.
Fundamentally, if we believe that people should have an opportunity to develop the best of their talents and make a contribution to Canada and if we believe in a society where every citizen should have the capacity to develop to the best they can be, we believe in education.
If we believe that we are facing an increasingly global competitive situation that Canada must be part of internationally, then surely we believe in education at the post-secondary level for any citizen who is capable of achieving the standard to achieve a higher education.
What does this bill do? It says that the federal Government of Canada, the government with the responsibility for the ability of this country to compete internationally in a new world where knowledge is going to become at least as and probably more important than resources, is going to cap its contribution to post-secondary education in Canada. That means we are going to continue four more years the cap on the ability to develop and use the talents of all young Canadian people. It means a cap on the ability of people in mid-career who find they have to shift the direction of their career and training. It means stopping their ability to return to university, to be able to adapt to the changing economy and the changing world environment the government is so fond of preaching about.
If we need one concrete example, I need only refer to a statement from the Siemens Corporation, which is hoping to create 3,000 new jobs in Canada in the next short while. The main reason it may decide not to do that is because it is not sure it can get the qualified people. However, this government wants to cap its spending on education.
It wants to put a cap on social services. We have all heard numerous times in this House the statistics about poverty and what poverty ends up costing us if we do not deal with the poverty of children. We know that children living in poverty are four times as likely as the general population to drop out of high school, to never complete high school and therefore never to have the same employment opportunities, the same opportunities to contribute to the Canadian economy, as children who do complete high school and perhaps go on to university.
Government Orders
With this bill the government is ensuring that the ability of Canadian provinces and Canadian communities to deal with the issue of the poverty of one million children in this country is capped. It is capping our ability to deal with the poverty of children who are more likely to be seriously injured, more likely to die, more likely to commit suicide because of poverty.
It is not good for the health of this country that children and families live in poverty. Yet this government is saying: "We are not prepared to share the resources of this nation to solve the problems of poverty and to let young children grow up into adults who can participate and make a full contribution to Canadian society".
At a time when small businesses are experiencing bankruptcies at a highly elevated rate, and I remind the government that small businesses create 80 per cent of the new employment in this country, 80 per cent; at a time when we need employment and we need small businesses to create those jobs, this government is increasing by 24 per cent the unemployment insurance premiums, having said less than two years ago that the unemployment insurance premiums were fixed and would not change for three years.
I hope we will remember that it was only two short years ago that there was a substantial and damaging increase in unemployment insurance premiums. Only two years ago, at the same time that the GST was going to be hitting small businesses, they were also hit with an increase in unemployment insurance premiums, not to mention employees and workers in this country who are paying higher premiums for less coverage. What other provider of services in Canada could get away with that, pay us more but get less?
My final and major concern is about medicare in this country. We have a medicare system that provides health care at 25 per cent less than the cost it is provided in the United States, where it is a private health care system; 25 per cent less. We have a population that is healthier, a population that has more access to affordable health care for 25 per cent more than the cost to the United States, just to the south.

December 4, 1991
Government Orders
Yet this government wants to cut its transfer payments to support medicare to the point where the federal government will transfer no money to support a national health care system that has given us a strong and healthy population. Not only that, but it introduces a blackmail clause saying that when we are no longer paying out money for medicare to the provinces, we will take back money from services to young offenders, and from official language education at a time when national unity is a major concern. What a ridiculous thing to be even contemplating.
The blackmail clause on medicare is especially insidious, quite likely unconstitutional, and yet this government persists in saying "we will undermine the medicare system for the sake of short-term goals" that are more motivated I believe by politics than by good policy.
A great deal more time would be necessary to speak to all the failures of this bill and all the weaknesses but a diminution of looking after our primary resource, our people, is not a productive and helpful thing to do when our economy is already faltering, when we are far from out of a recession and when what we need to be is more capable, more productive, better educated and healthier.


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, it is not a happy moment for me to have to get up and speak on Bill C-20. This piece of legislation, I feel, is a pretentious omen of things to come from this government.
It is a bad piece of legislation. It has extremely harmful ramifications for Canada's social programs, extremely harmful ramifications for the future of our educational systems in Canada.
It is through the bill the government is signalling its determination to destroy Canadian institutions and essentially a Canadian way of life. The bill is essentially a signal of the beginning of the end for Canada's universal medicare system as we know it today and a slow but inevitable erosion of the federal commitment to our post-secondary education programs across this country.
Health care, post-secondary education, the unemployment insurance program, to name a few, are the victims in this bill, the victims of a Tory corporate agenda, a continued and unrelenting attack on our basic social structure in Canada and a harmonization of a style of government that becomes more and more familiar to us
as a pale copy of a market driven system that is present in our neighbour to the south.
The capping of the federal contribution to education through the legislation, capping the Established Programs Financing funding to education, is essentially a betrayal of our young people in Canada, a betrayal of their future. It is forcing students to mortgage their own futures in order to obtain their futures.
At the same time this government continually speaks of the need for international competitiveness, of a trained labour force, and at the same time it is doing that it is chipping away at the very foundation whereupon that competitiveness can be built. Unless we have a highly skilled and highly educated work force, Canada can never hope to be competitive in this global economy. At the same time that it talks about this need for global competitiveness, it erodes the very foundation of our post-secondary education system in Canada. It is getting more and more and more expensive for a student to obtain a post-secondary education in Canada today. It is becoming essentially an opportunity for those who are better off in Canada, but certainly not an opportunity for students who maybe through their own recourse do not have the financial capability of obtaining their education.
The government has claimed that it has to cut back on these programs, on the delivery of health care services to the provinces, on the delivery of funding for post-secondary education. It has to withdraw or cancel its funding from the unemployment insurance program because it claims that the cupboard is bare. That is the message that has been repeated time and time again: "The cupboard is bare". Yet, by the government's own admission, it has suddenly found over $8 billion in unpaid corporate taxes in this country in tax deferments. We see $53 million that the government has squandered on a high-tech on-line communications service through the Ministry of External Affairs to the embassies throughout the world, a service that is redundant before it has even been brought on line, a service that is still not working. There was $53 million squandered on that particular program.
We see a government that has found funding, and legitimate funding I might add, for employment opportunities in Quebec, and yet at the same time sits on its hands when jobs are lost in my home province of British Columbia, completely ignoring the plight of the forestry industry in British Columbia and ignoring the plight of our fishermen on the west coast and in the Atlantic fishery. People wonder about the equity and the fairness when the government claims the cupboard is bare and yet finds these funds and finds the $8 billion that it has simply ignored and refused to collect from corporate

Canada which has not paid its fair share of taxes. At the same time it withdraws its support of the unemployment insurance program and forcing the small business community in Canada and workers of Canada to pay a larger and larger share in order to finance the unemployment insurance program. It has been a terrible burden on our small business community in Canada.
I have talked with small business people in my constituency in the Okanagan-Shuswap. Many of those businesses are finding a pretty tough time during the current economic situation. Those extra costs of having to bear that burden of UI, of having to administer the GST are placing many of those businesses in a very, very untenable situation indeed. I want to focus for a few moments on the federal cutbacks to the health care program. The transfer payments to the provinces and the territories through this legislation, the transfer payments which have been frozen over the last few years, are going to be extended for another three years up to 1995 through this Bill C-20.
These preliminary calculations show that this total freeze of some five years on these transfer payments for the established programs is going to result in the loss of some $13 billion to the provinces. Somebody is going to have to pay it or else there is going to be a significant erosion of those programs. It places more of a burden on the provinces and ultimately on the taxpayers in those provinces to fund programs that historically and legitimately should be paid for by this federal government. This breaks down over the five years to a loss of some $9.5 billion for health care services. I would submit that there is no way that the provinces can make up that loss without a significant erosion in the standard of health care.
In British Columbia alone that will amount to a loss of some $1.14 billion to health care in British Columbia. This is a significant loss in funding for a province whose health care systems are already taxed to their fullest, and I would submit right across this country.
Government Orders
This is the consequence of this legislation: the erosion of health care, the erosion of post-secondary education, the erosion of institutions in Canada that have become very much a part of the fabric of this Canadian nationhood. This bill is the signal of the end for those programs. It is a bad piece of legislation and it is a sad day for Canada.


Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make some comments on Bill C-20, a bill that has been introduced to implement some of the initiatives of the February 1991 budget.
We have to look at Bill C-20 for what it really is. It is a bill that puts into place the working ability of the government to eliminate federal transfer payments to the provinces. By doing so it will allow the federal government step by step over the years to lose control of our great medicare system for one.
This bill, by the withdrawal of funding in a slow and painful way, undermines the Canada Assistance Plan. It undermines the principle of equalization payments to the different programs. It undermines our medicare system and begins to undermine post-secondary education funding and therefore the system.
This bill, and I think correctly, has been called social policy by stealth because it puts into force a strategy by which the federal government is able to reduce significantly its financial obligations to its own programs, as well as transfers to the provinces, while simultaneously creating a mechanism through which it will be able to maintain influence over provincial medicare programs by means not provided under the Canada Health Act.
The government is saying one thing out of one side of its mouth and doing something else out of the other. It says it supports them and then at the next breath it starts to withdraw from the funding and does it in a very devious manner.
Canada Health Act entitlements, through Established Programs Financing, may be withheld by the federal government as a means of deterring a province from violating the act's requirements for national standards. Therefore the established program funding transfers are gradually reduced and the federal government loses its leverage for enforcing the medicare principles. This is

December 4, 1991
Government Orders
what the Minister of Finance was talking about in the 1991 budget when it was tabled and the freeze on the EPF transfers was extended through to 1994 and 1995.
The Minister of Finance said: "I recognize that limiting the growth of transfers under the Established Programs Financing raises concerns about the ability of the federal government to continue enforcing national medicare principles under the Canada Health Act". I beg to ask this House and Canadians: If that is a sincere concern, why did he go ahead and do it anyway?
What has been done? In short, Bill C-20 will allow the federal government to deduct Canada Health Act penalties from cash payments owing to the provinces under any federal transfer program. This legislation goes way beyond withholding EPF entitlements. Provisions within Bill C-20 have the potential to undermine the full range of federal transfer payments. The government can now turn an individual or a business or a city against a province which has violated the Canada Health Act.
The federal government will be enforcing its policies by punishing innocent people for violations of others. I repeat: social policy by stealth.
What are some of the areas that can be affected? Under Bill C-20 the health care practices of a province will now have a direct impact on any group relying on funding for cost shared programs. The list is long. I will just give you, Mr. Speaker, some of the letters that have already come from my constituents and organizations. This is already coming down through the provinces.
I have a letter from Cathy Mates of the Quinte Literary Council which reads: "I recently received a letter from the Fellow Family Literacy Workers and was greatly disturbed to discover the education, community and social services ministry are considering discontinuing social assistance recipients funding for our programs". She goes on to say that it is because the funding is being cut back by the province.
I have another letter from the executive director of the Quinte Regional Credit Counselling Service, Mr. Richard Bower: "Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services has chosen to cut completely credit counselling services. I was visited in my office last week by the executive director of the Canadian Mental Health Association, Hastings and Prince Edward branch. The enclosed material will give you a brief outline on how we
feel the federal government might play a part in minimizing some of the suffering your constituents are experiencing due to cutbacks in funding". Those discussions went on to say what was happening and that the funding was being withheld from the federal government to the province.
One program can be played off against the other. If a province does not live up to the standards that the federal government sets but does not wish to fund, it can withhold crop insurance funding to farmers. It can withhold funding to programs that deal with disabled persons. It can withhold funds that would find their way into legal aid and compensation programs for victims of crime. The list goes on.
Another impact of this bill is the impact on post-secondary education funding. This very same bill repeals a number of sections and implements a low growth strategy in transfer payments to the provinces.
We all know it is quite conceivable that very soon the tuition fees at universities will probably hit $3,000 a year. The government is forcing higher education out of reach of the average Canadian. It is the average Canadian that we need to educate in this country if this country is to have any hope at all of being competitive on the world market in the next century.
Bill C-20 also announces a 30 per cent premium increase in UI premiums. The government said with the implementation of Bill C-21, the UI bill two years ago, it was withdrawing from the financial obligations to the unemployment insurance fund and that it was implementing a plan which would make the fund self-financing. It assured us that the government would make up any unforeseen shortfalls in especially hard times. That assurance has now been translated into two raises in UI premiums.


An hon. member:: It was false.


Lyle Vanclief: Certainly it was false. It did not follow through on its assurances to Canadians and to employers or employees at all. Since that we have had two raises: one at 24 per cent and one at 7 per cent. That is what the employee pays and, as we know, the employer pays 1.4 times that.
In closing I would like to offer some solutions for the government to consider.
December 4, 1991

The federal government should first continue to play a significant financial role in both health care and postsecondary education. When I say a substantial role, I do not mean to say just talk about it and give it lip service but to follow up; in other words, put its money where its mouth is.
Second, any changes in the financing of health care and higher and higher education should result from federal-provincial negotiations rather than being imposed by Ottawa.
Third, any new arrangement negotiated for financing health care and higher education should focus on federal cash payments and who has the cash to pay for these programs once they are agreed upon.
Fourth, federal funding for health care should be distinct from funding for post-secondary education.
Federal legislation should stipulate that the cash received by a province for health and higher education is spent as intended.
Just in closing, Bill C-20 is a strategy which focuses on the negative aspects of addressing deficit reduction. It is a negative approach to solving a problem. I might suggest that Canadians have enough negative things to think about at the present time.
It is time for us to use the legislation to generate some creative solutions to our problems. Let us look at creating something good and useful in terms of our program development, tax reform and deficit reduction efforts rather than simply shifting burdens over to someone else.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate today in the debate on Bill C-20 at third reading because this bill is a particularly pernicious piece of legislation. I can see that the parliamentary secretary is nervous at the thought. He should be up on his feet opposing this legislation too, and indeed his constituents I am sure urge him to do that. I refer to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.
As my hon. and very capable colleague the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings has just indicated in his speech, there is more than one piece of legislation affected by this bill. In fact, there are two principal areas
Government Orders
that I would like to speak on and to criticize the government's proposal as contained in Bill C-20.
The first and most important aspect of the bill is its limitation of transfers to the provinces. This particular set of provisions has been a disaster. We have had massive cuts in the transfers to provinces since this government took office. I suggest that it is frankly a national disgrace. It is causing continual cutbacks in the ability of the provincial governments to deliver programs, particularly health, education and welfare programs for their people. Those are the three that have really been cut.


An hon. member:: What about the deficit?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: My hon. friend says: "What are we going to do about the deficit?" I will deal with that in a few moments if he will just keep his shirt on.
I say that what we are concerned about are these cuts because provinces are unable to deliver on these programs, particularly the less well-to-do provinces. Ontario is becoming a have not province with the New Democratic Party government. It is running up record deficits that are going to cripple the ability of that government to operate in future when another government is restored to office in that province that is capable of managing the economy as the previous one was.


An hon. member:: Liberal.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The previous Liberal government was an extremely good government. I am glad my hon. colleague in the New Democratic Party agrees. The fact is that-


An hon. member:: A $2 billion deficit.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Yes. As my hon. colleague says, it was a $2 billion deficit under the Liberal administration in Ontario and, within a year, it grew to $10 billion under the maladministration we are now suffering in that province.
The hon. member I note is from Quebec. I can understand why he is citing these figures, because his colleagues from Ontario in his party do not dare refer to such figures in their comments in this House. They are ashamed and embarrassed by the conduct of the government in Toronto.
However, to go on with what I was saying, the problem with these cuts is that they are crippling the ability of our provincial governments to deliver these important

Government Orders
programs which, after all, were set up in large measure by federal government urging and federal government legislation.
The national medicare system, as every member in this House knows, was introduced by a previous federal government and the provinces went along with it. Some of them went kicking and screaming along with it, but now they are all glad to be in it except that the federal government is backing out of its obligations to fund the medical programs being delivered in those provinces. The same thing is true of education. The same thing is true of welfare.
Indeed, the National Council of Welfare has predicted that by the year 2000, as a result of the changes introduced by this government, the federal savings as a result of these cuts in provincial transfers will amount to some $16 billion a year.
That is a staggering sum of money. Clearly the provinces are going to be in very difficult straits by that time unless there is some change in the financial arrangements that are to be worked out between them.
The second is the unemployment insurance provisions. I want to quote from the former Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre, who made in his 1989 budget speech a statement that has turned out to be completely false.
He said: "The government will continue to contribute to the financing of the program"-the unemployment insurance program-"in difficult economic times when it is inappropriate to raise premiums and prudent to allow deficits to build up in the unemployment insurance account". These are difficult economic times.
The Minister of Finance, after months of prodding, finally admitted that we were into a recession last year. It is obvious to every Canadian except the minister that it is not over yet. These are difficult times. Canadian businesses are going bankrupt at record rates. Canadians are going out of the country to shop in record numbers.
I was just reading in the Kingston paper today how there were substantial line-ups at the border. They were people trying to get out of Canada to buy goods in the United States. Maybe it was the Ottawa paper. It was a Cornwall border crossing.
This kind of problem is a serious one for Canadian retailers. Canadian businesses are suffering because of this government's botched economic policies. Yet the government says that apparently these are not difficult times. It has raised unemployment insurance premiums twice, as my hon. colleague indicated, once was in July by 25 per cent which was a staggering increase, and now on January 1 they are to go up by another 7 per cent.
This is economic mismanagement on an impressive scale. To suggest that these are not difficult times and that the unemployment insurance fund ought to be bolstered by contributions from the Consolidated Revenue Fund of this country is preposterous. Yet that is exactly what the government has proposed by this bill.
My friend from Edmonton Strathcona wanted to hear about the deficit. Part of the reason we are in this financial mess is because of this government's inability to control its expenditures.
The hon. member was not running in the election of 1984, and neither was I, but I was campaigning and I suspect he may have been too. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East says he was. He must remember the promises his leader made throughout the election campaign, that when the Conservative Party took office it was going to look after the deficit right away. The top priority was to get the deficit to zero.


An hon. member:: Where are you going to cut?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: We did not make that promise. He made the promise. He took office and look what he and his party have done.
Their idea of deficit reduction is to increase the deficit on an annual basis. That is what has been going on. This government has no more idea of what constitutes deficit reduction than the man on the moon.
Day after day I have stood here and said that these figures have gone up. In the last three years the deficit has increased in Canada. Every time we raise the issue and ask when it is going to fulfil the promise made in 1984 and lower the deficit, government members start hooting and hollering that they inherited this big debt and the interest payments are simply too much for them to manage because of some Liberal government before 1984.
December 4, 1991

If the deficit was so big, why did they promise to eliminate it in the election campaign in 1984? Were they telling lies to the people of Canada? Is that what was going on?


An hon. member:: I have no idea.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I have a very good idea. I knew what the deficit and the national debt were in 1984. I knew what the government was promising. I did not believe its promise.
The Canadian people were hoodwinked by the Prime Minister and his cronies who ran around the country promising to eliminate the deficit. The hon. minister is part of this group that is running this country so badly that it is running it into the ground.
It is because the government is unable to keep the promises that it made. That is the problem. If it kept its promise and eliminated the deficit, if it cut the programs it said it was going to cut, we would not be facing this kind of legislation today. We would not be facing the recession that we are facing in Canada today which, after all, was created because of its disastrous economic policies.


An hon. member:: What is your alternative?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The hon. member asks what is my alternative. I will tell him what I would have done. If I had made the mistake of signing the free trade agreement, which of course we did not and I opposed, we would have lowered interest rates and lowered the Canadian dollar so that business would boom in this country instead of going into a state of collapse. That is what we would have done. By lowering the interest rate and by lowering the value of the dollar, we would also have lowered the interest payments on the public debt by billions of dollars and the deficit would be lower today instead of higher. That is a fact.
Instead of listening to our very reasonable suggestions on this score, the Minister of Finance and his friend the Governor of the Bank of Canada say that they are going to pound inflation into the ground. They are going to eliminate inflation in Canada if it kills this country. And that is exactly what they are doing. They are killing business in this country. They purport to be the great
Government Orders
party of business, the great champion of business in this country. You and I know they are destroying business in Canada. Record bankruptcies and cross-border shopping at an unparalleled rate are adding up to a disaster for this country, brought about by disastrous policies introduced by this government.
It is time for a change. The parliamentary secretary is grinning. He knows it is time for a change. He and the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona should get up and vote against this bill, bring the government down, force an election and give us a chance to bring in some reasonable administration that can do something about the problems of this country instead of making them worse.
I am sorry my time has expired.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I am really pleased to see that we are getting into the Christmas spirit here. It is not even December 25 but we are really getting into "the night before Christmas".
I am surprised because every time we get into a debate like this I wish we could stop pointing fingers and laying blame. The situation right now is that we are stuck with a very serious problem. Hold on now. There are two sides to this coin. I think both sides are right and both sides are wrong, in a certain sense. I will tell you how they are.
It is true that the Conservative government inherited a terrible deficit. It is true that a great deal of the problems we have today are due to free spending by the federal Liberal government at the time. Money was just being thrown out the window. I believed that and I was not running in any election. I was just an observer. I was a Canadian taxpayer and I was upset. I was even more upset to see that orgy of patronage. I do not know if you remember the dying days of that Liberal government, but it was an orgy of patronage where everybody in the know was getting a job and the money was just going out the window.
Since that time we have had a Conservative government and I think that the Conservative government has made an honest attempt to cut costs in some areas. But in cutting costs it has attempted to push the problem over to the provinces and on to the backs of the people who are least able to accept these cuts.


Mr. Thorkelson:: Where should we cut?

December 4, 1991
Government Orders


Philip Edmonston: The next question would be: How could we have done it? I am quite surprised that the Conservative government would ask someone in opposition because it should know what to do. Unfortunately they do not know. There are a lot of things that can be done. The NDP has had a policy dealing with what cuts could be made without actually hurting the people who are least able to accept these cuts.
We have said in the past that there is a minimum corporate tax that could be levied. We said that over and over. When I look at the United States and I look at the minimum tax that it has levied, I do not see that has had a specific negative effect upon business. Look at the corporate tax loopholes and the reports from Statistics Canada saying it is not necessarily these programs that are causing this deficit. Statistics Canada, not too long ago, said the problem we have with the deficit today is because of the huge deficit left by the Liberals to the Conservatives when the government changed.
That is a result of the fact that the government has had a huge carrying cost on that debt and has been unable to cut government expenses.
If this government really wants to know how to cut expenses, 24 hours ago a brilliant document was released showing ways to cut expenses. It is called the Auditor General's report.
It talks about billions of dollars being unaccounted for and millions of dollars that could be saved. Yet when we as parliamentarians come before this House and say "look, government, we are not in favour of cutting grants to the provinces for education and for health", this government gets into partisanship to the extent that it says: "Well, where do you want us to cut?" It is as if the Auditor General did not even exist, as if there was no independent, non-partisan basis from which it could seek a kind of Rand-McNally map on sound fiscal management. We have that. We have the Auditor General.
I would mention to the government side that some people have proposed fiscal reform even in the Liberal Party. There is a parliamentarian by the name of the member for Broadview-Greenwood. He wrote a very interesting report on a single tax. There are some parts in his report which show that we could have fiscal
reform, generally balance our books, and at the same time not attack those people in our society who are the least able to afford these tax increases.
That is where we are today. We are at a philosophical crossroads. Do we continue to tax people who are least able to afford these tax increases while Canada is being run into the ground? Whether you are Liberal, Conservative or NDP you must admit that when you go to your constituencies people are telling you: "Stay out of our lives, federal government. We are tired. Every time you are active in Parliament our wallets get thinner".
This is what is happening with people from across our country. We are all hurting. When I say we are at a crossroads I am saying that people do not want to see education and health care cut as Bill C-20 proposes.
That is wrong. There are other alternatives. We have given you some. The Auditor General has given you some. I just hope that when you hear these proposals coming from the NDP, the Liberals and the independent Auditor General, you will wake up. The closer you get to the next general election the better chance that you will wake up. I hope you will not wait that long because generally what happens before an election is that the government in power starts to give out goodies across the country to win votes. I hope it is a thing of the past because it is no way to build a Canada.
We do not have what is called "cheque book federalism". I hope the only reason we will vote for a political party and the only reason we will stay federalists or Canadians is not because you have given our particular province more money than another one or because you have bought us off. Canadians cannot be bought but they can be angered. There is an angry mood in the country right now.
The mood is so angry that people in different provinces are getting together and forming tax advocacy groups for their own protection. It has happened in my own province of Quebec and I think they are doing the right thing. We are on the verge of a tax revolution. People are saying: "We are paying more and more taxes and getting less and less services". Bill C-20, which seeks to cut the transfers to the provinces particularly in the area of health and post-secondary education, is an example of the government cutting in the wrong place.

Let me tell you about the feelings of the average middle-class Canadian today, seeing what we as parliamentarians have done as far as taxation and the failure to cut expenses.
In the field of secondary education, in Quebec we have a taux de decrochage or a dropout rate of approximately 38 per cent. Thirty-eight per cent of students drop out of school. The students are our future. They are our future in Canada and right now we are pushing off to the side 38 per cent. That is a terrible number. It is terrible. There is no way that should be allowed in any country. Rather than adding to the financing of post-secondary education we are taking away.
Look at health care. From the province of Quebec's angle, when we look at health care we desperately do want to keep respecting national standards. However, how in the name of Jehovah can you ask us to respect national standards in Quebec when you keep paying us less, when you keep saying: "We want you to run a marathon, but we are going to give you Reeboks made of lead"? You just cannot do it. You cannot carry out the services. The average middle-class taxpayer who wants these services, wants national standards, and wants fair taxation is angry. We are on the verge of a revolution. We are on the verge of this anger being channelled into some very serious demands for reform.
In conclusion, I and my party are against this bill. The reason we are against this bill is because the government has not woken up. It is not cutting in the right place. Unfortunately we will not be able to do much about it except talk until the next election so I wish the government would call an election as soon as possible.


Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-20 this evening. This particular bill is one that tries to turn down the tap of government spending. It does not turn off government spending but it attempts to turn it down a little bit. There are a lot of Canadians out there who are starting to become concerned about what the aftermath will be when the government moneys slow down a little bit, particularly in the context of a recession. Keynesian economics shows us very clearly that this is the exact wrong time to cut down on government spending.
Government Orders
In any event, how did we get here? How did we get into this situation where we have to radically alter the way we fund transfer payments to the provinces, the way we fund government programs? Are all of the services provided by the federal government, by the provincial governments, by the municipalities that are funded by these EPF transfers and the other funding mechanisms referred to in this bill continued? The needs are there in education, health, unemployment insurance and others. In the recession these service needs are actually growing. They are not slowing down. Even in the recession they are growing.
Why are we in this position now? There are several reasons and I know we will debate them in this House for many years to come. It is my view that following the 1982-1983 recession, when there was a sequence of large deficits totalling about $167 billion, there was a period of good years, roughly from 1984 to 1990. We cannot necessarily fault a government for a recession. These things happen cyclically over history. We have recorded them and watched them all through this century. However they do occur. They may be a necessary evil. However in this particular case, in this recession we are in now, there was real evidence that the government permitted or induced the recession with its monetary policy through the Bank of Canada.
That was a government policy decision. It is not going to walk away from it. To keep interest rates high was a decision of this government. The result has perhaps been a double-dip recession, not just a single scoop.
In any event, it is my view that between the two recessions, the one in 1982-1983 and the one we are going through now, the government failed to properly address the deficit position the government was in then and it failed to properly manage the economy. It was mismanagement to fail to take account of the growth in the EPF funding structures, to fail to take account of the potentials for government surplus. In the good years it actually mismanaged our economy.
The result is that we have to deal with this recession not from a position of strength but from a position of weakness. Canadians are disappointed in that. They are disappointed in the last five or six years. That is how we got here.

December 4, 1991
Government Orders
What are the result and the impact on Canadians? I want to mention two things. First, and there are numerous ways to look at this piece of legislation, is the erosion of the government's commitment to the unemployment insurance fund. Other colleagues of mine from the New Democratic Party and possibly even from the government side have mentioned that it was clear at the time of the 1989 budget that it was the government's intention to buttress the unemployment insurance fund so that premiums did not have to be unduly raised.
I know it has been mentioned before. However, I just want to mention again the words of the member for Etobicoke Centre himself who stated that the government will continue to contribute to the financing of the program in difficult economic times when it is inappropriate to raise premiums and prudent to allow deficits to build in the UI account. That was confirmed in other debate in this House and in the the other place.
This particular bill authorizes, and we do not want to support that authority, an increase of 24.4 per cent in the UI fund. Having put that in place, if this bill passes we have a follow-up increase of another substantial increase.
Things are now so bad in the fiscal management of this country that the government has had to renege on that promise and on others. Yes, we are disappointed and we are angry. Fiscal mismanagement during the good years has made this breach of promises and lack of preparation for the bad times come to pass now. We have to deal with this as a country.
Second, all of the money that moves from our government to other governments goes to services. A lot of it is delivered through provincial programs. We see it going to post-secondary education. We see it in the hands of welfare recipients. We are talking about the real needy, the real hungry, and the real poor. That is where this money that we are talking about today was supposed to go and now will not.
The government's response is to change the funding mechanisms as if the process is simply a piece of machinery. This government is not bold enough to go to the needy and the poor and say the cupboard is bare.
It is just going to change the mechanisms. It is in fact subcontracting that job to the provinces, the municipalities, the social workers, or the teachers. It is subcontracting the dirty work caused by the fiscal mismanagement of the last half dozen years.
That is what we are disappointed at. That is what makes us angry. That is what embarrasses us a little around here.
To the extent that this government is subcontracting the dirty work, it is doing the job blind because it does not stop to measure the impact on the real poor, the real needy and the hungry. It does not have the opportunity to see what is happening because it will not do the job itself. It does it indirectly by fine tuning, by changing the funding mechanisms.
It is very difficult to be constructive in addressing legislation like this when all you have to work with, all you see on the table, is a knife that cuts. It is very difficult to be constructive and so I cannot be. I can be critical though. I can be critical of how we got here and I can be critical of the impact on Canadians who need this type of support from government. It is a legacy of the 1982-83 recession. It is a legacy of the mismanagement of the good years, but it is still mismanagement. I wish we could repeat history and do it all over again, but we cannot.
We oppose this bill.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to participate in third reading this evening of Bill C-20, an act which will cut back on the government's commitment to education and health, as well as other areas.
During second reading of this legislation, I had the opportunity to also speak on this bill. At that time I spoke about the damage this legislation would do to our health care system, our education system, and how it was affecting the ability of the provinces to manage their budgets.
I also talked about the policies the government is inflicting on small businesses. We can see what is happening there. We have bankruptcy rates such as we have never had before in this country.
Today I want to talk about some of those things, but I also want to discuss in detail the government's claim that it must cut back on education to reduce the deficit and make this country competitive.
This government, as we know, has doubled the debt in only six years. It is planning to cut back on spending on

education and health care. According to the government it must do this to reduce the deficit and to make Canada more competitive.
I think it is wrong on both counts. First, the government's recent paper on prosperity indicates that the educational attainment of the work force as a whole is way below the levels that will be required in the future. In fact, it has been indicated and forecast that between 1989 and the year 2000, which is only nine years away, 62.9 per cent of all jobs will require at least grade 12 and 40 per cent are going to require 16 years of training. That is what is going to be required in the future.
Presently we have a work force that as a whole is below the levels that will be required. A couple of statistics regarding the present situation show that 40 per cent of adults have problems with everyday math and reading demands. In our high schools, three out of ten drop out of high school before graduating.
The future competitiveness of the economy depends directly on the skills, training and abilities of our domestic work force. It stands to reason that if a company cannot find the skills it requires to be competitive on a world scale, if the training we are providing to young people is not of a high enough standard to supply our economy with a competitive work force, then how does this government expect Canada to compete in an increasingly competitive international economy?
Certainly there are education cutbacks proposed in this bill. As you know, we have also had cutbacks in research. In fact, the federal contribution to university research and development dropped from 36 per cent in 1984 of the total university research money to 32 per cent.
You would think, in view of all that, that this government would be wanting to improve education. Certainly by its actions and by legislation that it is bringing in, it is doing the exact opposite.
As I said earlier, cutting back on education may contribute to the short-term deficit reduction goals. In the long term it will cost us our ability to compete internationally. It will cost us our opportunity to be truly prosperous in the future. It will cost us jobs, technology
Government Orders
and tax revenue, and it certainly will become a hindrance to any comprehensive, long-term deficit reduction plan.
My riding is in Prince Edward Island. I can tell you that there, where we have a total budget for the province of not much over $700 million, these reductions and funding commitments have a major impact. They have a major impact on a province the size of Prince Edward Island.
Since 1988 my province has lost $100 million due to caps by this government that it has placed on transfer payments. Forty-five million dollars of that is in equalization payments and $54 million is in the Established Programs Financing. It is the money that we received to go to secondary education.
What the government has actually done is not reduce the over-all burden of the country. It is simply passing on the debt to the provincial governments. As I said earlier, a lower deficit would assist in making Canada a healthier economic country. Reducing the deficit by decreasing our commitment to education can do irreparable damage to our future ability to compete and it will harm, not help, our economy in the long term.
In addition to the problems that are created by the cutbacks in education and health, many of our provinces are experiencing very difficult economic times.
There are a number of issues that I could speak on at length which this legislation that we are discussing here this evening will affect. It will have a negative effect on my province of Prince Edward Island, but I want to sum up by calling on the government to really do three things.
I call on the government to re-examine its misguided economic policies which have caused the problems that this government is inadequately trying to address in this legislation. I call on the government to put forth legislation that will stimulate the economy, not stifle it.
Third, I call on this government to withdraw this legislation and replace it with a new economic plan that would make measures such as we are talking about under Bill C-20 unnecessary.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.

December 4, 1991
Private Members' Business


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The question is on the amendment standing in the name of Mr. Walker. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the proposed amendment stands deferred until Monday, December 9, 1991, at six o'clock p.m.


Albert Glen Cooper: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think you would probably find there would also be consent to call the main question at this time so that we could put both questions on Monday.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to proceed to Private Members' Business?

After consultation, I must remind you that the main motion cannot be put to a vote until the House has disposed of the amendment.
The hon. parliamentary secretary has the floor. [English]


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I do want to put it on the record that there is the consent of the House for us to have completed the debate and on Monday what we will do is put both motions at that time.
I also want to indicate to the House that I think you will find consent to call it seven o'clock and we could then immediately proceed to Private Members' Business.


George Albert Proud: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Of course we cannot preclude anything.
Yes, we do seem to agree but we cannot preclude and, Mr. Speaker, you were very right to let us know that we cannot go that fast. We will proceed orderly.
There is an entente but anything can happen and no one knows better than our friend that anything can happen. So we cannot be on record as having given consent too often today. We would proceed as your order has so rightly indicated we should.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent to call it seven o'clock?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should establish a national task force to deal with the growing crisis in the Canadian steel industry and the complaints of steelworkers and steel manufacturers, which include a high dollar, high interest rates, and the free trade agreement.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege to proceed with this motion. After three years I finally had a motion drawn and I do appreciate the opportunity to speak to the steel industry in this country. I think everyone agrees, all three parties, as well as the unions, the workers and the steel producers of this country, that the steel industry is in crisis. I suggested a task force for several specific reasons. First of all, I wanted to find out what constitutes a task force. I did not want to be so presumptuous as to suggest a royal commission.
A task force is something that emphasizes public hearings. It has a shorter time period than a royal commission. Less staffing and funding are required, and it is much more flexible and less formal than a public and stately royal commission. It is good for quick responses in trouble shooting situations. May I suggest this fits the bill. We are in a trouble shooting situation and the timeframe to address this problem is indeed very short.
I think the task force would remove some of the sensitivities that we met when the member for Selkirk-Red River suggested that an all-party committee address this issue under the auspices of a subcommittee under
December 4, 1991

industry, science and technology. That met an unfortunate demise. I suggest this would be more sensitive to the differences and would bring together all parties in the necessary timeframe, which is indeed very brief.
The precedents are many and there have been task forces on issues of less import. The precedents have been set and some of them are: the task force on human resource development; the task force on tax benefits for northern and isolated areas in Canada and task forces on electricity. The mandate of task forces has been microscopic and probably macroscopic.
Why is it necessary now? All industries, not only Algoma Steel, are in crisis, and most of the industry is losing money in the tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars. May I suggest that only Ipsco in Saskatchewan seems to be doing reasonably well.
The steel industry is the very cornerstone of any country's manufacturing industry. It could be decimated unless some dramatic changes take place. I believe that all players must participate before those changes will take place.
A task force would raise the profile of the industry and indicate just how serious it is. I am sure other people may point out that there are other studies going on. Industry, science and technology is conducting a very thorough investigation of the steel industry, the results of which I believe will come in late spring.
There is a labour force study, a joint study by labour and government, which is very narrow in its perspective on the steel industry. I am not suggesting that we reinvent the wheel and start the investigations all over again. In fact, some of the steel producers have indicated to me that they have all those things in place. That may very well be, but may I suggest it may take something like this to collate all those things and bring them together in one unified package with government approval so we can proceed.
What is in place now lacks any political component. There are no other bodies that can really deal with this issue as appropriately as a task force.
What are the problems with the industry? I think the free trade agreement has worked against us. To prove that fact, the American industry is now exporting into
Private Members' Business
Canada to the tune of 17 per cent. Import penetration is now 25 per cent. Mr. Telmer from Stelco suggests that the Americans are eating our lunch. I suggest they are not only eating our lunch, but breakfast and supper as well. May I suggest to those who tout the dispute panel mechanism that we have lost those rulings. Algoma was put together with Sysco even though I do not think we were guilty of dumping rails into the United States market. Nevertheless we were cumulatively put in with Sysco, and we know the problems with Sysco.
I think the member from that region has pointed out that we cannot sell rails in the United States even though the demand for rails is back ordered for 18 months.
We are selling a lot of steel offshore at little or no profit. We are precluded from the United States and the domestic demand is down. When we have a megaproject like Hibernia and anticipate getting some domestic orders, the first steel order that comes out goes to Belgium. Whether it is dumping or not, it causes the steel industry in this country a real problem.
I suggest that the member from Burlington has been an advocate of the steel industry and we have a steel caucus. It has not been formalized, therefore we are having difficulty getting anybody to listen to us, especially when we go to Washington. I think if that cannot be formalized and we cannot have a committee, once again we come to a task force.
Another problem is that the Canadian steel producers have an organization but times are so tough that one of the major members has had to drop out. What consolidated voice do they have?
Even though it is one industry, we must compete against one another. We have to do that, but I hope a task force would unify the group. We could speak as one and take a look at the problems as one.
For instance, I have had an opportunity very recently to go to the Middle East and China. I learned over there that one of our main competitors, British Steel for instance, has had an office in the Middle East for 20 years. We occasionally send a sales person over there to test the market. It is not surprising it is very difficult for us to sell over there.

Private Members' Business
In China we have American marketers. They are our representatives in China. Even the Chinese have suggested that we deal with them directly. Do we have to have an American middleman? I think these kinds of things could be studied by a task force.
With the status of the industry, they just cannot afford to put any money into research and development. Unfortunately in the good times it did not spend as much as it should have. I am told if sanctions had come into South Africa, as most of us endorsed, it could have crippled the steel industry. Some of the natural resources that we require are not available from anyone else in the world.
It has been suggested to me that perhaps they have been working on a synthetic product to replace those resources from South Africa. Once again, the industry is not in it together so I do not think that is proceeding any further.
It is difficult for the Canadian industry to compete. I think we all accept that. We are competing with offshore producers that do not pay nearly what we pay our people. We are competing with mini-mills in the United States that are extremely competitive. It is becoming more and more difficult for us to compete. But we cannot give up. Surely there must be answers for the Canadian steel industry.
The steel industry world-wide has restructured. The Canadian industry has restructured. Algoma had 12,000 workers in 1980. Now it has 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000 depending on the time. I think the workers are prepared to sacrifice and get involved in a solution to the problem. They are going to require some assistance and I think the government has to play some kind of role in this situation. With the results we would be able to collate the work of this small group of people. We have to get them involved. Again, one of the members suggested 14 weeks of a subcommittee of the industry, science and technology committee. Fourteen weeks is too long. He suggested travel. There was some resentment by committee members. They did not think this was the appropriate way to handle it, that it was going to be costly and just too time consuming.
I could see a task force bringing forth results in a matter of four or five weeks and bringing forth specific recommendations. Study after study after study that has gone on in the past and some are presently being brought forward, but there has been no consolidation of what has been done. I think a task force could collate the material and make some specific recommendations that we could address. Once again, the shorter the list of recommendations that we would have, the better it would be for the steel industry.
We have to become, if I could digress for a moment, a little more aggressive on the trade scene, in particular with our American neighbours to exempt us from VRAs, voluntary restraints, in exporting our Canadian steel into their market. I have already told you the statistics about import-export difference. By the way, our share of their market has been cut in half in the past three years. When I asked the minister about applying the same attitudes and aggressiveness to the American market, the minister suggested: "Well, it is a double-edged sword". I suggest it is a double-edged sword. I suggested at that time that the sword cuts us both ways.
We simply have to become more aggressive. We need more industry aggressiveness, more government support and government aggressiveness. I will never forget my first visit to Washington with the steel caucus group. Basically the Americans suggested: "Keep out of our market. You have your share. You will get no more". Those words were indeed true because their actions since then have borne that out. American protectionism is alive and well, and our response thus far is a very passive approach to our American neighbours.
Some of our own trade officials at briefings suggested: "I do not understand why the Americans do that to us because we are fair traders". I suggest we are probably more than fair traders, but we are not getting what we should be getting.
Another problem, and very specific to Algoma, is because of the amount of imports that could probably be applied to all of the steel industry in this country, we are convinced that all sorts of tubular products are coming in from all over the world and they are coming through at our border crossings. It is a very complex, difficult situation for an inspector to get on and see these loads and determine from where that tubular product has come. To the credit of ISTC and Revenue Canada-and it is good to see the minister here-Revenue Canada has seen fit to instruct the inspectors, to give them specific, instruction as to how to determine which may and may not be imported pipe or improperly stamped. Having given that credit, the problem is we do not have enough inspectors to do the appropriate inspections. A simple recommendation like that could be addressed. It has not been addressed previously but could be addressed by a
December 4, 1991

task force along with a lot of other aspects of the steel industry.
What we have to put together is an over-all strategy. Algoma cannot operate in isolation. Dofasco cannot operate in isolation. Stelco cannot operate in isolation. The parent-child relationship between Algoma and Dofasco we all thought would be a great relationship and a great marriage. Well, Dofasco eventually said: "We are cutting all of our ties with Algoma". That is an indication, perhaps, of how the industry is unto itself. It would be much better if we got in this together, at least on the task force level.
We cannot fight it alone. We need to have government assistance. We have to react now. We cannot wait for any further studies from anybody. Let us collate those studies.
To end this, I understand that the subcommittee on Private Members' Business had deemed this to be a votable item, but when it hit the whole committee it did not go; it is not votable. I am very anxious to hear members of the government and perhaps the Official Opposition to see what their response to the task force would be. It is not deemed votable, but certainly I would hope that members from both other parties would give at least a vocal, moral support. I know a couple of the members in here, by their actions, are indeed interested and supportive of the steel industry in this country. I think they agree that the crisis is now and the crisis must be addressed now. I think a way of addressing it right now is through a task force.


Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk-Red River):: Mr. Speaker, I think the comment I am about to make I would not have made a week and a half ago, but I am going to stand up and speak against this particular motion.
With the efforts that the member from Sault-Ste-Marie put forward in describing the necessity for a task force and the make-up of the task force and also the commentary about the fact that at one time the standing committee-and he acknowledged my part in working quite hard in trying to create a standing committee-
Private Members' Business
with the 14 or 16 week study has done a true in-depth study of the steel industry.
I am kind of suspect now about the fact that when we got to the point we did in the discussion about the subcommittee that the hon. member decided it was not quite as necessary then as his task force is now. I feel uncomfortable in the fact that maybe if we knew there was some discussion about the fact that a task force should have been formed, we could have talked about it.
Mr. Speaker, I think you know that we had the opportunity of discussing the creation of the subcommittee among the members of the standing committee, and also with the industry. We took a look at the fact that there should be input from the Department of Industry, Science and Technology, that there should be input from organized labour, and that there should be input from the management side.
I am somewhat suspect in that for some reason everybody seemed to want to pull the plug on this. That could be for any one of a number of reasons. Hopefully it was not so that we would create a task force. Hopefully they had other reasons. A task force or a subcommittee of the standing committee probably would have accomplished the same results. There was some concern about whether or not the length of time was too long. As the hon. member obviously knows, the concerns that seemed to be out there-and I say seemed to be out there because we obviously will not have a chance now to have a look at them as part of the standing committee- to my mind probably go a lot further. The reluctance of both industry and departmental officials to carry on has me somewhat suspect.
In talking with the executive director of the Canadian Steel Producers Association, along with an official of the Department of ISTC who is very involved with the steel industry, there seemed to be some concern about a parallel study.
Whether or not the parallel study comes via the standing committee, which has the resources and the abilities to study the industry, or whether it comes from a task force, I would think the results would be the same.

December 4, 1991
Private Members' Business
I wonder if the industry would have the same response to a task force as it does from a subcommittee of the standing committee. For whatever reason it has decided not to do it, I am suspect. I am wondering if, because there is at present the study going on jointly by management, labour and the Department of ISTC into the solution, management and labour have taken control of the study and are driving the study.
I am also just as pessimistic on the other side that I am somewhat concerned about the fact that maybe the department is somewhat reluctant to have somebody take a look at the study just in case they do not come up with the same results.
In any event, because of the fact that neither management nor departmental officials were interested in carrying on this study, I do not think we could go and force our way into doors and get a proper job done. What I would like to signal at this time is that when the report does come out from the industry departmental study, I personally will make quite a close scrutiny of that report and at that time make my recommendations to the standing committee of how that report should be dealt with.
The member for Sault Ste. Marie talks about a number of things regarding the steel industry. He talked about the fact that there is not enough money spent on R and D. There is no doubt that industry does not spend enough money on R and D.
We are all aware of the fact that the Government of Canada provides the most generous tax relief to R and D in the world. For whatever reason, industry has decided not to utilize those benefits. We talk about the history of the steel industry and the member made a comment about the fact that there was not a lot of input into R and D or capital cost. There is no doubt about that.
The relationship between the steel industry and what we found in the study of the auto parts industry is exactly the same. I wonder about the protection created because of the low dollar back in the late 1970s and early 1980s. There was an auto pact to protect the steel industry, whether it be the automotive parts industry or the steel industry itself, and the National Energy Program was in place. There was an artificial cost or the manufacturers were paying an artificial price for their energy, and when
it came time to enter the real world they could not compete.
A lot of these things keep rising to the top. I am just wondering if maybe the concerns that the industry flagged when it came before the standing committee are just superficial. I am wondering if all the industry wants to do is stand up and sling mud at government policy but is not really prepared to sit down and talk about meat and potatoes and how we resolve some of the problems in the steel industry.
The member for Sault Ste. Marie made quite a significant commentary about the fact that Canada cannot compete on the labour side. I have to reflect the cost of labour in my own community. We do have a mini-mill that is doing its best to be competitive not only on the R and D side but is changing its manufacturing process on a regular basis. It has quite an upgrading department to upgrade its employees. It is doing everything it possibly can.
What it is doing is paying a rate. I am flexible on this because I do not know the exact dollar, but in comparison it is paying roughly $18 an hour for its labour. Its competition which is down in the southern United States is paying the equivalent of about $8 an hour, so there is a very significant difference in the cost of labour.
There is $8 and there is $18. Like I say, these are rough numbers. The difference is that the $18 in Manitoba is a fixed rate. That is the average rate in the plant. There is no flexibility. At the end of the day or the end of the week you get your paycheque and off you go.
Their American competition, a mill of equal capability and equal age, at $8 an hour is paying a bonus on production. The people in the American mini-mill who are making $8 an hour at the end of the day are probably making close to $20 an hour in comparable funds. Along with that is the fact that we do have some problems with R and D. We do have some problems with the fact that the capital projects have not gone through the way they possibly should have. We do have a significant problem with labour. They are not working together. We have to change that concept and show that there has to be a balance. There has to be a fundamental change in how
December 4, 1991

labour and management work together for the success of the company and the community.
I do not really know how to resolve this right now. When I started out earlier I was somewhat suspect about the fact that quite a significant effort to work a subcommittee out of the standing committee of industry, science and technology failed, and within a week we were standing in the House debating a task force that is expected to do the same thing. I feel uncomfortable about that.
As I said earlier, when the report from the industry and the department is made public, I as a member of the standing committee on ISTC will make quite an effort to study that report. At the end of the day we will be working hard as a government to do what we can to maintain a viable steel industry here in Canada.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to say a few words on the motion before the House by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie because it gives us a chance to look at the steel industry in Canada today.
The importance of this industry of course cannot be underestimated for any modern industrial state. Certainly for Canada and for those communities in Canada like Sault Ste. Marie, Burlington, Hamilton, Cape Breton and at least 13 other communities across the country, this is a major industry, a major employer and a major indicator of the importance of the Canadian economy. Certainly this industry is important.
It is an industry in very deep trouble. It is an industry which over the last five years has lost some 9,000 employees. That cannot be easily shunted aside, and of course the difficulties facing it in the years ahead are even greater.
When we had the recession in 1982 we thought the industry went through a very difficult time then. Clearly it did, but a recent presentation to the Liberal deindustrialization task force by a representative of Stelco described the 1982 recession as a cakewalk compared to the 1990-1991 and what probably will be 1992 recession. That is apparent.
Private Members' Business
It is certainly apparent to those of us from the Algoma district and from the city of Sault Ste. Marie. We are hovering on the brink of whether or not we will be able to maintain the integrity of the Algoma Steel Corporation which back in 1982 employed some 10,000 employees. It now has some 6,000 employees and the best case scenario seems to be to hope to maintain some 4,200 employees out of that figure. It was almost two and a half times that amount 10 years ago.
As we look at the industry across the country, we see an industry going through many of the tragic and difficult times that the United States industry did during the 1980s. We are told that in the United States various levels of government programs pumped some $35 billion into that industry during the 1980s. In fact, it lost several hundreds of thousands of jobs. I believe it went from some 480,000 to 180,000 during the course of the decade. We are belatedly going through that. When we went into that recession in the early 1980s we were far advanced from its situation.
Why the crunch now? The crunch now comes from a number of factors, but clearly the extremely high dollar value and the high interest rates over the past several years since the free trade deal was signed have been very important factors. The Canadian Steel Producers Association believes that the high dollar has reduced demand by some 20 per cent. It points out that the high interest rates since 1988, since the free trade deal was passed, have made it extremely difficult for the industry to modernize and put in place new equipment.
It is those things combined with a number of other factors. It seems tragic to me that our Canadian producers have to be so extremely careful of ever getting government support in terms of restructuring. Let us face it. Most steel industries around the world get government support one way or another.
I had an opportunity to visit China Steel in Thiwan earlier this year. The whole industry was owned by the government. I believe there is some private participation now, but most steel industries around the world have received government support. If we in Canada provide any significant support that can be identified, we are immediately subjected to countervail by the United States, yet during the past decade it has received

December 4, 1991
Private Members' Business
benefits in the order of $30 billion to $35 billion. We have very great difficulties.
When the free trade debate was on in 1988, during that period every steel industry in Canada lined up. This was a solution: nobody could find a solution to the countervail anti-dumping challenges by the United States industry like the free trade deal. Of course that has not worked out. There has been countervail actions and anti-dumping duties imposed on Sysco and Algoma, on the tube division, on the rail division and so on, by the United States.
I guess one kind of starts to wonder: Was this just some minor oversight by the government in negotiating the free trade deal? It does not seem so. In the free trade deal we agreed that we would put to work a committee to establish a subsidy code of support programs that would not be subject to countervail.
Since 1989, in those three years since, absolutely no progress has been made on that. In fact I am told that the Canadian negotiators did not want even to broach the subject, to get into serious negotiations, because they would rather negotiate it under the multilateral trade negotiations at the GATT.
One just wonders if they are afraid to negotiate a subsidy code so that Algoma, Sysco or any other steel company that might need government restructuring assistance would know whether a particular support program of the government is subject to countervail. No action has been taken there. We hope that something will come out of the GATT negotiations in Geneva, which will be concluded in the next few weeks. That would be helpful because clearly the United States industry has received massive government support. Our industry cannot receive support without inviting countervail and anti-dumping duties.
Those are a number of the problems that face the industry today. I am told that the loss to Canadian producers from January 1990 to July 1991 totalled
527,000	tonnes, two-thirds of it to the United States because of its ability, its lower cost of production in some sectors such as mini-mills and so on, the value of the dollar, as well as a very suicidal kind of pricing.
For example, I am told that the United States mills lost $738 million in the first quarter of 1991 to drive down the prices.
We need to study the problem. I believe it should be done through the standing committee. It is all organized to do it. It has already started.
We need more than that. We need government action. We need government action on macro-economics. We need government action in the case of Algoma. We need assistance in the restructuring of the Program for Older Workers Adjustment. We need a commitment on that. We need a commitment on a national training centre which would assist many of those workers and assist the industry generally.
We need government assistance by way of tax incentives for the proposed employee buy-out because we are entering a new phase where we have to be competitive and we have to be productive. I believe that the employee buy-out approach can maximize that benefit.
There are so many things that need to be done. It is important and useful for parliamentary committees and groups to study these matters and make recommendations to the government. However it is important that the government act on the specific assistance that is needed for companies like Algoma, but also act on those macro-economic levers and trade issues so important to the steel industry.
Mr. Bill Kempling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State
(Finance)): Mr. Speaker, I was not going to speak on this motion but there is some time left so I will say a few words and try to clear up some of the mysteries that have been thrown on the floor.
First, the basic problem with the steel industry in Canada and around the world is overproduction. There are 100,000 tonnes of steel produced in the world with no place to go. That steel ends up in many cases in North America because North America represents the last two free markets in the world.
I just hope that everybody understands that is one of the basic problems in the industry. Another basic problem aside from that is the fact that the industry cannot sustain a price rise. You cannot make profits. You cannot build new factories, plants, processes and so forth.
I noticed recently that a couple of American mills have raised their prices slightly and we hope that it will stay. If it does, it will bode well for the Canadian steel industry.
December 4, 1991

Let me move on just briefly to the free trade issue. There was no tariff on carbon steel. That should be well known to everyone. Steel was really not part of the free trade agreement.
What was applauded by the industry was that the steel industry would be able to take advantage of the dispute settling mechanism. There have not been any really serious cases before the dispute settling mechanism board.
The Algoma case that is referred to on steel rails and the Sysco case were before the International Trade Commission because they were dumping actions.
On the Canadian and American sides the dumping laws are still in force. We may at some time down the road meld those laws together so that they are relatively simple and stop this nonsense. We have some regulatory problems on the shipping of steel across the border. It is not something that cannot be solved to the advantage of all concerned. It is just that there are a lot of Customs regulations in place in the United States that we have not been able to find a path through, but we will. We are working on it.
As far as the dispute settling mechanism is concerned, we gave ourselves five years under the FTA to determine the definition of a subsidy. We said that if it was not done in five years we would extend it for another two years. There is a seven-year period to define what we mean by subsidy.
At the same time we have these multilateral discussions going on at GATT. Subsidy is being discussed there as well. I have talked to my colleagues in the U.S. Congress and they seemed to say: "We think in the final analysis that we will probably accept the GATT definition of subsidy and that will sort the matter out as far as we are concerned''. I suspect that down the road that is what is going to happen.
The advantage of the dispute settling mechanism is this. A panel is chosen, five members from each side, five Americans and five Canadians. Then the combined group is given a list of individuals, both Canadian and American. From that list they choose a chairman. To me that is a much better arrangement than going before the International Trade Commission where we appear as a supplicant before the court. Using the dispute settling
Private Members' Business
mechanism will in time be the best thing we ever did for the steel industry, and many others as well.
Statistics are strange animals. People can twist them to mean anything they want. However, the fact is that whether you look at it on a tonnage or a dollar point of view we are shipping more steel into the United States than it is shipping into Canada. Our largest steel customer is the United States. We are its largest steel customer, but we still have a step up on them because we are exporting more steel into the United States than it is into Canada.
What happened to the balances recently was that there was a steel strike. It came at a time when General Motors was placing its fall orders for steel for its new run of automobiles. The result was that the mill it had been buying from was not able to supply. The other mill it could have bought from had a full order book. Consequently it bought the bulk of that steel in the United States and Germany. That is what happened. That is why the statistics are distorted.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Kempling:: The hon. member does not seem to want to believe that. I think if he really delved into it he would find that is the case.
There is some light at the end of the tunnel for some of our mills in this country. Many mills are a fact of life. They are going to be here for a long while. There are more being established all over the world and the only thing we have to worry about is where they are going to get their feedstock. Most of them use car hulks. Maybe if we wanted to help the steel industry we would find some way to get more car hulks into the industry rather than importing them from the United States as we do.
The problem the steel industry is having right now is the debt to equity ratio. It has gone out of the country where money is cheaper, in Japan and in some cases Germany. It has borrowed sums of money, bought technology and put new mechanisms in place. Dofasco will be opening one down in the Windsor area. It has combined with NKK and National Steel to form a production facility that will produce steel that is coated on one side with zinc. Stelco has just opened its z line. Those plants and that production are designated for the automobile industry. It has spent sizeable sums of money. It has borrowed money offshore. It has a debt to equity ratio that it has to watch very carefully, but I am convinced that it has the machinery, the equipment and the market there to deal with this.

December 4, 1991
Private Members' Business
Turning to the market for steel production in Canada, I might say that 85 per cent of it is consumed in Canada. Only 15 per cent of it is exported. We should not get all exercised. We would like to export more steel than we do right now, and I believe we will. Under the free trade agreement there are no quotas. There are no quotas. There is no 3 per cent of the market. We can export steel into the United States and we are doing it every day. We are doing quite well with it.
I know my friend from the Sault is upset about Algoma. I am upset about it as well, as are others. However the fact is that it acquired more debt than it could handle and it has some serious problems. We hope Algoma survives, but I do not know whether there are many people who are really convinced it will. We hope it does.
As far as the government putting money into the industry is concerned, I think that would not be a good move on our part. If you are going to offend your largest market for your product, why do it? I mean perhaps you just want to fight, you want to holler and get up in the House of Commons and make speeches about how bad the Americans are. I know that is the great line of the
NDP, that the Americans are bad. But the fact is that they are our largest customer. If we put money into the steel industry we are going to be looked upon as subsidizing that industry. I do not think we can do that at this particular time.
With those few comments I will conclude. I just might say as far as this task force is concerned that I think the wise thing to do would be to wait for the report from industry, science and technology and then strike a subcommittee on trade and commerce to study that report. Then, having studied that report, you have some knowledge and you can go on to do what you please from there.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There being no further members rising for debate, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 7 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, December 5, 1991