1991-10-24

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Hon. Marcel Danis (for the Minister of National Health and Welfare) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-39, an Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan, the Family Allowances Act and the Old Age Security Act.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 68(2), the motion is deemed adopted.


Marcel Danis: that the bill be now read the first time and printed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.


PETITIONS
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from people in Dubuisson, Malartic, Joutel, Sullivan and Val-d'Or, who respectfully submit that the Canada Labour Code must comply with the principles set forth in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and therefore must protect women's rights.
For these reasons, they ask Parliament, when it reviews the Canada Labour Code, to consider seriously the deficiencies in it and to recognize the need to include in the Code clauses concerning the preventive withdrawal of pregnant women, with pay.


Guy St-Julien: I have a second petition, Madam Speaker, from people in Cornwall, St. Andrews and Summerstown, Ontario, concerning firearms. They say that the accessibility of firearms is a key factor in homicides, accidents and suicides. Many types of firearms that are easily available in Canada are not necessary for legitimate purposes like hunting and competitive shooting. They ask Parliament to legislate now to ban everyone with a criminal record from owning a firearm.


Hon. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Madam Speaker, I am presenting a petition today on behalf of citizens of Canada who are deeply concerned about the situation in Yugoslavia.
They are aware of the representations made by the Government of Canada to the United Nations to intervene to cease the violence. They are outraged about the crimes of humanity that are evident there and they desire the independence of Croatia and Slovenia.

October 24, 1991
Routine Proceedings NORTH THOMPSON RIVER


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops):: Madam Speaker, it is an honour to present a petition, pursuant to Standing Order 36, for the residents of Barriere and Louis Creek, British Columbia. They point out their concerns regarding the announced intention to dam the North Thompson River at Valemount, thereby directing water into the San Diego, California area.
They are asking the Government of Canada to state simply, once and for all, that our rivers in this country are not for sale.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On another matter, the citizens of the city of Kamloops are concerned that the government has indicated plans presumably to curtail support for the RCMP at present levels.
They point out that these cuts would reduce and erode the service and effectiveness of police protection in their communities. They are asking the Government of Canada to restore and maintain proper funding to the RCMP so that it can fulfil its mandate and role as the only visible police force for many communities across British Columbia and remain a viable symbol of Canadian unity.


Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my pleasure to present a petition to the House today which requests that this government address the issue of drug RU-486. The petitioners are concerned that this drug, which causes the abortion of human foetuses at an early stage of development, will be introduced into Canada.
The petitioners therefore call upon the Government of Canada to withhold approval of RU-486 and prevent the marketing and/or testing of this drug to ensure that it may not at some future date be used to induce abortions.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition which has been circulated around Canada. The people who have signed this petition are in favour of the use of the port of Churchill.
From the province of Manitoba we have petitions from Brandon, Churchill, Rapid City, Cranberry, Portage and The Pas; from Saskatchewan we have petitions from
Harris, Zealandia, Sturgis-including the mayor and council of that community-Norquay, Regina, North Battleford, Liberty, Imperial, Stalwart, Porcupine Plain, Tisdale, Biggar, Kamsack and Prince Albert; and from Ontario, Don Mills.
These petitioners call upon Parliament to make sure that the port of Churchill is used and that we recognize in the changing world situation that it provides a unique opportunity for the federal government to develop, expand and promote further the indisputable potential of Canada's only inland sea port.
Further they point out that there is a need for the federal government to act immediately to develop a strategy in order to utilize this important seaport to ship exports as well as grain.
Wherefore the undersigned petitioners humbly pray and call upon the House of Commons to direct the minister responsible for the Wheat Board to ensure that for the upcoming shipping season usage of the port of Churchill be maximized at the very least for 3 per cent of Canada's annual grain shipments through the port of Churchill and that the government act immediately to maintain, further develop and promote the port to handle exports in addition to grain.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present to this House today. Pursuant to Standing Order 36,1 have the honour to present some petitions from public servants who, of course, express their great disappointment with the Conservative government's attitude in the dispute of recent weeks concerning public servants' salaries.


Don Boudria: have another petition which is signed by a number of farmers in the province of Ontario who want to make this government aware that they are very dissatisfied with the low levels of commodity, grain and oilseed prices in this country and that they are expecting some relief from the federal government. They want this assistance to be this year, not some decade in the future.
October 24, 1991


Mr. Dan Heap (TVinity-Spadina):: Madam Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 36,1 have the honour to present a petition from a number of Canadian residents in Toronto, Brampton, Scarborough and Downsview who are concerned with the continuing policy of this government to carry on low level flight training over Nitassinan, the land of the Innu people in Labrador and Quebec.
They ask this Parliament to join with the Assembly of First Nations, the Innu and other aboriginal peoples of Canada in opposing the use of their lands anywhere in Canada for NATO and NORAD attack training and to demand that the Canadian government end all NATO and NORAD low level flight training in Canada and redirect Canada's NATO and NORAD funding toward enabling Canada's aboriginal peoples to regain control of their lands and their livelihood and toward promoting sustainable development for all Canadians.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 36, I am pleased to table a petition in the House signed by residents of British Columbia regarding plans by Multinational Resources to dam the North Thompson river.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to urge the government to state categorically that it will not permit our fresh water rivers to be dammed and diverted into the U.S.A. and to state that our Canadian rivers are not for sale. This is a particularly important issue for the residents of Valemount in my constituency.


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


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Routine Proceedings


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 52 and pursuant to the notice which the Chair received earlier this morning and which it now has, I would like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, that this House engage in an emergency debate on the escalating crisis in Yugoslavia.
Very briefly, Dubrovnik in the last 36 hours has come under heavy artillery rocket fire attack by the Yugoslav army and navy. The bombing has caused extensive damage to the centre of that city, the ancient medieval city known as the Pearl of the Adriatic. It marks the first destruction of that old city despite the fact that it was established in the 14th century, survived the Turkish expansion and two world wars. The attacks seem to be intensifying hourly, according to my information.
The old walled city has been recognized by UNESCO as a class o cultural monument of world international importance along with things like the pyramids. In a less vicious way the city has been under siege for the past 25 days. I understand there are presently over 65,000 civilians taking refuge within its walls. It has been under bombardment by land, air and sea, as I have said, for 36 hours. I would point out that the Yugoslav army became a signatory to international law in 1955, a law that requires the protection of cultural historic monuments of world importance and significance.
All this is happening 24 hours after the Yugoslav army general flatly rejected participation by the European community brokered peace plan. At the same time the army, as I understand it, condoned a mobilization of reservists in an all-out offensive on the democratic republic of Croatia.
In those indicated circumstances, especially given what has happened in the past 36 hours, I would ask that the Chair consider under Standing Order 52 the granting of an emergency debate.

October 24, 1991
Supply


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Speaker and I discussed this situation very seriously earlier this morning. We are very aware of the gravity of what is happening in Yugoslavia now. Nevertheless, we believe that it might be wise for all three parties to discuss this situation together and agree among themselves that the House should discuss this subject in the very near future. However, we do not consider it appropriate to interrupt the debate planned for today; this does not mean, though, that in the very near future, the Chair would not see fit to do so.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls) moved:: That this House condemn the government for reducing the level of transfer payments to the Atlantic provinces, thereby threatening the stability of health care and education, and further condemn the government for its destructive policies toward the fishery, the railway and the post office.
He said: Madam Speaker, today we will be asking the Chair to permit us to reduce the time of our speeches on this side of the House to 10 minutes each, followed by a 5-minute question and answer period. A lot of members on this side want to express their opinions and lay upon the table of the House the facts regarding transfer and equalization payments from the federal government to the four provincial governments in Atlantic Canada.
Our chairman of the Atlantic caucus, the hon. member for Dartmouth will in a few moments outline our main concerns with government policy. Later the hon. member for Burin-St. George's will outline as well the problems we are having with transfer payments, the fishery and other things of major concern to the province of Newfoundland.
One of our colleagues from New Brunswick will outline the substantial reduction in transfer payments. The news has quoted a $100 million reduction to the province of New Brunswick.
Another colleague from Prince Edward Island will be able to lay on the table of this House the most recent figures on transfer payments.
My colleague from Prince Edward Island will be able to show that there has been a substantial reduction in the equalization payments from the federal government to certain provincial governments in Atlantic Canada. This is according to figures from the federal Department of Finance that were given to members of Parliament just a couple of days ago. In other words, they are up-to-date figures for October of this year. We are requesting, Madam Speaker, that you recognize us for 10 minutes at a time so that we can present the case as strongly as possible to the Canadian people and to the Government of Canada that they need a major policy change.
The major point that I want to make in introducing the debate relates, as our motion says, to the destructive policies of the Government of Canada toward our major industries. One of my colleagues from Cape Breton Island will be speaking later in this debate and showing how the sale of the railway by the Government of Canada is threatening a forest products industry on Cape Breton Island located in Port Hawkesbury. He will present to the House the facts of the potential loss of hundreds and hundreds of jobs.
I have two pieces of paper in my hand. One is a news release by the Government of Canada issued two days ago and the other is a communication from the Soviet Union to a department of the federal government.
The press release that was issued just two days ago said that Canada has notified the Government of Japan of the approval of licences permitting seven Japanese vessels to fish a portion of Japan's international quota for blue fin tuna in Canadian division 3-0. Two days ago Canada notified the Government of Japan that seven of its fishing vessels can come inside our 200-mile zone this year and fish a portion of their international quota for tuna in competition with our Canadian fishermen.
Of course the reason why this was made in a news release was because it goes on to say that last year they allowed 16 vessels in from Japan. Then they go on in the news release and say that it was only five or six years ago that they allowed in 100 vessels. They brag about the fact that they are now allowing in only seven Japanese vessels. It is quite a statement to make because the quotas have not changed. You could allow in seven vessels 200-feet long and it is the same as 100 vessels 30-feet long.
October 24, 1991

The quotas for this year agreed to by the Canadian government stand at 1,300 tonnes to the U.S.A., 700 tonnes to Japan, and 550 tonnes to Canada for that fish stock. We are saying to our Canadian fishermen: "You cannot have any more licences. Your quota is frozen at 560 tonnes. You are not allowed to have any more licences but you can come and fish inside our 200-mile zone in 1992 while our fishery is in such disarray".
I went over the figures for before coming here today with the department. They showed that last year Japan not only caught its blue fin tuna inside our 200-mile zone but it caught unlimited amounts of albacore tuna, swordfish, big-eyed tuna, yellow fin tuna: unlimited quotas for big eye and yellow fin. We say to the Government of Canada: "Open your big eye. Forget your yellow fin and kick them out".


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


George Baker: The second piece of paper-I guess I am getting close to my limit-is a list of foreign nations. There are 12 and then there are others that have been given quotas by this government for 1992 all around the coasts of our Atlantic provinces.
There is not only tuna, but there is codfish, red fish, American plaice, yellowtail, witch, capelin and squid. As if that were not enough, every member of the Liberal Party in this House and I have a copy of the scientific advice because we asked for it. Our scientists and those of the U.S.S.R. and the Scandinavian countries sat down in a meeting in Halifax, Nova Scotia. They told the representatives of our government and every other government listed on this paper to stop it. They told them that for a zone called 3-M to continue the moratorium.
Do you know what the Government of Canada did? It did not continue a moratorium because it is a nursing ground for fish. It assigned quotas of 13,000 tonnes. It gave eight foreign nations 12,865 tonnes and Canada 100 tonnes off the coast of Canada.
What is wrong with the fishery? It is not the water, the ice, the cold water or the plankton. The fault is the Government of Canada. It is destroying our industries. It has reduced our equalization payments. It should be ashamed of itself. We hope it will listen to our arguments today and change its policies.
Supply


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TYinity-Conception):: Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Gander-Grand Falls for such an interesting display of facts. He has demonstrated the sadness of the situation by his presentation.
I also thank him for the overture to this orchestra this morning and afternoon which is going to be to come clean with Newfoundlanders, Atlantic Canadians and the Canadian public in this House. It will show what devastation and demoralization has been caused to Atlantic Canada by this government and its destructive policies.
We do amazing things when we are upset about policies. I will talk about the subject the hon. member mentioned. I know it is dear to his heart. The total allowable catch for fish in Atlantic Canada last year-


Mr. Mazankowski:: 


Fred J. Mifflin: TAC. I appreciate the minister's intervention. I am amazed at his knowledge. I really am.
The total allowable catch was 190,000 tonnes last year. Foreign overfishing, not fishing but overfishing which is fishing that they are not supposed to be doing, accounted for 150,000 tonnes. That is almost equal to the amount of fish allowed to be caught off our own coastline.
I asked a question of the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and I know that my colleague is very much associated with this. I would like to give him the answer I got and I would like him to comment on it.
The answer I got was: "The hon. member says we allow foreigners. The hon. member should come clean with Canadians". I should come clean with Canadians and tell them that no foreign trawlers are allowed within the 200-mile economic zone, except according to the rules of NAFO, and that is the reality. If that is the reality, how in the name of the Lord can we account for
150,000	tonnes of overfishing?
I would like the hon. member to comment on that.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception is going to be laying his evidence on the table of this House later on in this debate today. He represents a riding in which fishermen have been arrested day after day. Some 22 vessels have been arrested recently. Most of them were from the hon. member's riding.

October 24, 1991
Supply
The minister of fisheries is behaving like Terminator II, going out there and grabbing every one of his fishing vessels in 3-0. The Spanish and those of every other foreign nation were left alone because they claimed they were not fishing and because the Secretary of State for External Affairs has to give permission before they are boarded but not before the Canadian vessels are boarded. Under the NAFO quotas the foreign nations receive 150,000 tonnes legally, licensed by the Canadian government. There is an additional 209,000 tonnes of Canada managed fish stock on the east coast of Canada last year that were assigned to foreign nations that were so-called in excess of Canada's needs. That adds up to
350,000	tonnes.
The hon. member is right about the northern cod stock, the 190,000 tonne quota. The foreigners were catching 150,000 tonnes outside of that. When you add up the total take of fish in all parts of eastern Canada the foreigners are legally able to take almost as much as the entire Canadian fishing industry.
I want to illustrate it by concluding with this and to tell the hon. member that a letter was sent from the Soviet Union to Canada. I have a copy of it. It is dated March 22, 1991 and says: "The Soviet side undertakes to consider the terms of an exchange with the Canadian side of part of 3NO cod quota for additional Canadian allocations".
The Soviet Union, given cod inside our 200-mile zone for this year, given cod by this government, writes to the Canadian government saying that perhaps they will give up some of it if they are given some other type of fish assigned by the Government of Canada.
Our fishermen are wondering if they have to get a foreign flag to fly on their boats in order to be able to fish off the coast of Newfoundland.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Madam Speaker, it is not with a great deal of pleasure that I speak in this debate today. I believed when I first got elected here that the Government of Canada had a responsibility to govern all of the citizens of the country with fairness and equity in mind. It is becoming increasingly apparent, particularly over the last few days, that that sense of fairness, equality and duty are no longer there.
I would like to try to give some indication to the House and to those people who are watching exactly why we in the Atlantic, a vital part of this country, absolutely condemn and reject this government's economic policies. It has amounted to nothing short of an absolute assault and battery on each and every individual Canadian that is living in any region of this country outside of the have provinces, but most particularly those that live in the region of Atlantic Canada.
Back in 1988 when the government came into power it tried to cleanse its record of neglect in dealing with Atlantic Canadian economic issues. Just prior to that, in 1987, the Prime Minister made a major announcement saying that his government, as it was constitutionally bound to be, was in support of the principle of equalization, and the way that they were going to pursue their program of equalization was clearly going to be with a new program. I am going to quote the Prime Minister when he announced the $1.05 billion which was going to be the panacea for the economic ills of Atlantic Canada. He announced the creation of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency and he said: "We begin with new money, a new mission, and a new opportunity".
My, my, my, Madam Speaker, just a few years later how those words ring hollow.
The facts, which I am going to present, will show very clearly that this government and the statements of the Prime Minister back in 1987 have been absolutely contradicted by its actions.
The reason we are debating this today is that just a few days ago the provincial premiers in Atlantic Canada found that because of a quirk or a change or a formula that was kicking in in the equalization program, the amount of money they expected to get this current year would be diminished by over $170 million. It is not $170,000, but $170 million to Canada's poorest region, a place where there are only 2.2 million or 2.3 million people.
I want to make everyone aware of what equalization is. It is an unconditional-I want to underline that-an unconditional transfer to the provinces. What is it there for? It is there to ensure that the constitutional requirement that Canadians no matter where they live have a right to expect programs of a national standard are able to be maintained. That is what it is there for. In
October 24, 1991

provinces like Newfoundland where the unemployment rate is 70 per cent above the national average; in Prince Edward Island where the per capita income is 32 per cent less than the national average, the government, the Minister of Finance's own press secretary two days ago came out and said: "It is $170 million in cuts, so what. We've got $170 million in cuts because the economies are performing so well in Atlantic Canada". What utter nonsense and what arrogance.
Tell that to the fisherman who is going to face a winter on welfare, if he can get welfare from nearly bankrupt municipalities in Atlantic Canada. Tell that to the people who are waiting for hospital beds in parts of Atlantic Canada because the provincial government's do not have the fiscal ability any more with the cuts that have taken place to provide quality health care of national standards. Tell that to the students who because of rising tuitions and no job opportunities in Atlantic Canada cannot pursue their post-secondary education.
This government has struck at the very heart of what this country is all about in its crazy attempt to impose its fiscal regime and straitjacket on all Canadians.
It was Liberal governments which put in these programs that believed in the principle of equality and fairness, that believed in equalization and sought and got it put right into our Constitution in 1982. It is part of our Constitution. It is not part of some other piece of legislation that can be easily amended or changed by a majority in this place. National standards are part of our Constitution.
Previous Liberal governments believed it was important to redistribute wealth not just through equalization but through a process called economic regional development agreements whereby the federal government became a partner in the poorest provinces in this country in putting forward programs in fisheries development, quality enhancement, not just welfare payments. Money was put into programs to ensure that our fisheries was more efficient. Money was put into our forestry for silviculture so that it truly was a renewable resource. Money was put into special manpower training and mineral development and mineral exploration agreements because it was a real attempt-which was starting to work-to make sure that those regions were have regions, not just regions that constantly were on their
Supply
knees begging a benevolent Ontario for more money. That was the principle.
Between 1984 and 1989 there was $114 million worth of agreements. I am wrong, $1,144 billion worth of agreements that expired, in 1984 dollars. They provided tens of thousands of jobs in Atlantic Canada. What did this government do? Did it do the right thing? Did it go back in and renew those agreements? Maybe it did. It provided $272 million which would be the equivalent to probably about $150 million, 10 per cent, almost, which is a 90 per cent reduction in funding available for regional development agreements. That has caused us a crippling blow in Atlantic Canada.
In addition to that it came out with freezes on EPFs. That is transfers to the provinces for Established Programs Financing, programs in health care and programs in post-secondary education, which is a little different from equalization. These dollars are specifically to go to those provinces to ensure that the men, women and children who live in those provinces have programs of national standards in health care and programs of national standards in post-secondary education, a principle that this country was bom on and that it developed on.
What does this government do? It walks in and it cuts. Boy did it cut. It cut to the quick. For example, in little Prince Edward Island the effect of the freeze on any increase in EPFs, means this to every one of you people out there in P.E.I. Sixteen million dollars less will come in for hospitals and health care in P.E.I. this year, $7 million less will come in for post-secondary education. My goodness, there are only 130,000 odd souls in Prince Edward Island. Have you any idea what the effect of these callous and cold cuts in EPF are having on the ability of provincial governments to deliver those services with national standards?
In Nova Scotia, $111 million less will be transferred through EPFs to support health care. In Newfoundland, there will be $29 million less for post-secondary education. Do you wonder why we are standing in this House

October 24, 1991
Supply
today and saying that this government has gone absolutely against our very own Constitution here.
The government will tell you that regional disparity is not really a problem, that it has improved the relative standing of the Atlantic. I want to read this quickly: "In 1988, unemployment in Newfoundland was 53 per cent higher than the national average in 1982, but had increased to a level of 110 per cent higher as of 1988." That is a real measure of regional disparity. The regions in the Atlantic provinces are not closing the gap, the gap is getting bigger. Each time this government comes in with regressive, Draconian cuts, like it did yesterday or the day before, it gets worse.
I wish I had two days to speak on this, but I do not, I have about 30 seconds. I want to finish by quoting one thing here. I am quoting from the Constitution Act, Part III, Section 36 which is the mandate of the Government and the people of Canada. It states:
(a)	promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of
Canadians;
(b)	furthering economic development to reduce disparity in
opportunities; and
(c)	providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all
Canadians.
I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that what this government has done with the series of cuts that it has undertaken over the last two years has been tantamount to violating the Constitution of this country. What it has done is ensure that there are two classes of Canadians, those that have and those that have not. Unfortunately those have not mostly reside in Atlantic Canada. We will have no more of it.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the speeches of the member from Gander-Grand Falls and, as well, the member for Dartmouth.
What they have shown is that this government's economic policies are bankrupt. It shows that we are selling out our natural resources to foreign countries. I think it is unacceptable for Canada. The government is not defending the rights of Canadians.
What the government is doing, like in the free trade agreement, is selling out without tough bargaining and I cannot accept that and Albertans cannot accept that either.
So I would like to congratulate both members for their speeches.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I have not had the privilege of hearing all of the comments of my friends opposite. I have to say I was struck by the comments on the Constitution and what was unconstitutional and what was not, having just left the constitution committee meeting down the hall and not intending to enter into this.
I would like to draw two points to the House's attention. Last week in Bell Island in my constituency, I was attending a fund raising dinner sponsored by the Bell Island Economic Development Committee on behalf of the Wabana Boys and Girls Club. The guest speaker was the Hon. Clyde Wells. He is a man I have differed on many issues with, but a man that I have a considerable respect for, enhanced, if I may say, by his comments recently on the Constitution. I have to say that the man flabbergasted me, perhaps not for the first time, but I sat and listened to the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador talk about the fiscal position, the reduced expectations and the changes in transfer payments. However, the point that he was making to 100 people in that room was that the position of the Government of Canada was responsible and the only one that was acceptable under the conditions that we face.
I just throw that to the floor. I was as aghast as I know my friend from Grand Falls-Gander would be. I know he shares the view of the premier, as he does on many things.
I do want to say one thing, and I know the minister intends to talk about some of the things my friend from Dartmouth has said, particularly in terms of numbers and the cuts as opposed to reductions and increases.
I think it is essential to know that the commitment of this government, and I think the commitment of this House in the constitutional sense to regional disparity, is entrenched in the concept of equalization and the sharing of resources is absolutely essential.
October 24, 1991

I look forward to the discussion of that concept in the constitutional context, not only as it reflects the position of the Government of Canada, but the position of the other two main line parties in this House.


Ronald MacDonald: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that my colleague from St. John's has entered into the debate. He is an Atlantic Canadian and he knows full well that Atlantic Canada has been able to develop and prosper because of Liberal policies such as equalization and fiscal transfers. He knows that full well. He sits on the side of the government that has done everything in its power to dismantle those economic tools of nation building.
Madam Speaker, anybody who tries to tell you that a constitution has nothing to do with economies is crazy. If peoples' economic well being is looked after, they are probably going to be able to find accommodations and compromises on those other things that divide us and which are currently the subject of great debate across this country as to whether or not we can truly stay together.
As far as the comments by that great Liberal Clyde Wells are concerned, I am certain that Premier Wells is in a very difficult position. He is dealing with a federal government that has basically bankrupted the country because of its fiscal mismanagement. Clyde Wells probably tells the truth in this case. Clyde Wells says he can understand what is going on, because these members opposite, the government opposite, has virtually bankrupted the country.
Many would argue that we are no longer a viable, competitive force internationally because of the high dollar, high tax and high interest rate policy of this government. So I can understand Clyde Wells.
I want to make one final comment, since the hon. member wants to talk about the Constitution. The Prime Minister of this country is very good for giving very verbose comments on the national and international stage about competitiveness. When these new constitutional proposals were put down in this House, he also put some papers down talking about a new economic renewal in Canada. Madam Speaker, if what we have seen over the last two years is any indication of his new economic vision, I can say firmly, and I know with the support of a majority of the people in Atlantic Canada, if that is their
Supply
vision, thank you but no thank you, your vision is our nightmare.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate because the motion and the comments that have been made in speaking to the motion are misleading and inaccurate. It gives me an opportunity to set the record straight.
The issue of the equalization recalculation is not a surprise. It is not a quirk. It is not a change in policy. It is a fact of life. It has been there for many years, since equalization has been in place. There are no surprises. All the provincial governments involved know this. Their officials have been well aware of this. This is a very normal occurrence. For hon. members to express outrage is totally erroneous and misleading and not in accordance with the facts.
I want to deal with three specific points in addressing this issue, Madam Speaker.
The first point is this. We are not slashing, we are not robbing and we are not massively reducing transfer payments. That is categorical. The fact is that we are increasing transfer payments. We have increased them enormously and we will continue to increase them. As a matter of fact, in 1984-85 total transfers to the provinces including cash and tax transfer points amounted to $25.6 billion. In 1992-93 the projections are $38.1 billion, which means there will be an increase over that period of time of $12.5 billion. Common sense and logic would tell you that that is not a reduction, that is an increase and that fact has to be made.
I could go through each and every one of the components that make this up. EPF, which we have heard so much about, Established Programs Financing which provides assistance to the provinces for health, welfare and education, in 1984-85, the figure was $14,568 billion. This year, the figure is $20,368 billion and in 1992-93, they will continue their rise and will reach $20,620 billion.
How these members can stand up in this House and condemn the government for reducing transfer payments and do it with a straight face is beyond me. I do not understand it. Surely, this is a time when we should have an honest debate. There has got to be some

October 24, 1991
Supply
integrity restored in this institution if it is going to have any credibility.
It is starting right there.


An hon. member:: Be nice.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: When you lay out the facts and speak the truth in here, they get fidgety because they are paranoid. They continue to mislead.


Some hon. members:: Order, order.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Maybe it is not deliberately, but it becomes habit forming. It is time to set the record straight, and that is the first point that I want to make.


An hon. member:: That applies to you.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member over there, as long as he is dishing it out, he does not mind. He thinks it is a great place.
When you take them on and set the record straight, they either run for cover or they tiy to interrupt you, or try to shout you down.
The second point that I want to make is this. The expenditure restraint plan that is put in place has restricted the growth of fiscal transfers. That is true. We have asked everyone to become part of the solution in terms of dealing with the huge deficit and debt problem, and I think all hon. members recognize that.
All we are really asking everyone to do, and we are asking the provinces to do as we are trying to do, which is to contain the level of expenditures at the same percentage level of increase on an annualized basis in transfer payments as we are in terms of our over-all program payments.
We are containing our increase in program payments roughly in the area of 3 per cent and we are asking that these transfers be contained roughly in that percentage as well, but there are exceptions. One of those exceptions is, in fact, the equalization and the point that the hon. members are trying to take issue with here in terms of the transfers to the provinces under equalization.
The equalization program transfers have been exempted under the Expenditure Restraint Program. As a matter of fact, this happens to be the fastest growing expenditure in government. It is the fastest growing expenditure in government at an annualized rate of 8.3 per cent. It is 8.3 per cent on an annualized basis. As a
matter of fact, since 1984-85 when we came into office, the growth of expenditures under equalization have increased by 61 per cent.
These guys across the way are trying to suggest that we are massively reducing and robbing from the provinces. That is absolute nonsense. If we have a situation where Canadians watch this institution, I think they believe what they hear. I plead with Canadians. We will document every fact that I am outlining here in the House today. Let us look at it.
Equalization: In 1984-85, the total expenditure was $5,422 billion. For this year, it is expected that that will rise to $8,465 billion and next year it will rise to $9,048 billion. Madam Speaker, I ask you: Does that sound like a reduction? Does that sound like a massive reduction? No. It is a massive increase.
The hon. member for Dartmouth just finished criticizing us for our economic policy. He said: "This government's high tax, high interest, high dollar policy, is destroying-". Interest rates are down. He wasn't around here 10 years ago today, Madam Speaker, when the prime rate was 22.75 per cent. As a matter of fact, 10 years ago today, the five-year mortgage-listen to this- the five-year mortgage was 21.75 per cent. Even when his leader was in office in 1979, the chartered prime rate was 12 per cent. The chartered bank rate today is 9 per cent, the lowest in 13 years.
He wants to raise taxes. Where are you going to get the money from? You want to spend more money; tell us where you are going to raise the money. Tell us where you are going to raise the money. If you are so good as resolving regional disparities, how come you did nothing about it in 25 years when your government was in office? Where were you? You didn't conceive of a program like ACOA.


Ronald MacDonald: Defend your own record, you are the Minister of Finance.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I certainly will, and I will tell you it is a heck of a lot easier meeting a 9 per cent prime rate than a 22.75 per cent rate. I can tell you that any day.
What does this mean in terms of equalization grants on a per capita basis? Let us lay this out on the table, Madam Speaker, because I think Canadians have a right to know.

Equalization per capita, that is per person, 1991-92, the province of Newfoundland, $1,649 per person; the province of Prince Edward Island, $1,531; the province of Nova Scotia, $1,050; the province of New Brunswick, $1,201; the province of Quebec, $554; the province of Manitoba, $896; Saskatchewan, $498; and, of course, the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia get nothing because they are classified as the so-called have provinces.
I put these figures on the table because it clearly demonstrates that Atlantic Canada is getting the most out of the equalization payments on a per capita basis. I think that has to be clearly put on the record.
The third point I want to make is that the best guarantee to preserve our health care and education system across the country is to renew economic growth and sustained recovery with price stability, but for that to happen we have got to identify and get at the root causes of our problems, and that is to bring interest rates down. Interest rates are the key to stimulating economic growth. In order to get interest rates down, you must bring inflation down and you must bring the growth of expenditures down. You must tackle the deficit and you must tackle inflation.
This government has done both. We are making progress on both fronts. We must make progress on both fronts if we are going to lead to a sustained economic recovery.
I am pleased over the fact that over the last six month period the annualized rate of inflation was 2.5 per cent. I think it is better than any of us ever expected. That is very fundamental and very important if we are going to achieve two goals, the goal of price stability and the continuing decline in interest rates.
Our interest rates have gone down by almost 600 basis points or 6 per cent since the high of May 1990. The deficit and the way in which we manage our fiscal affairs is very, very vital and integral to identifying and tackling this problem. We must continue along the program of government expenditure restraint. We must continue to ratchet down the deficit. Our plan is to bring the deficit down to a level somewhere in the order of $25 billion in the next fiscal year, and by 1994-95 we will be in a position, hopefully, where we will not have to continue to borrow to meet our essential needs. At that point in time we can start paying down the debt.
Supply
This requires tough decisions. Everyone has to be a part of the solution. I am glad the hon. member for Don Mill is here, because I respect his interest in economic issues and I respect the fact that he attempts on every occasion to be constructive in dealing with these issues.
If we look at where we were prior to 1984-1985, the Government of Canada was spending $1.33 for every dollar of revenue it was collecting. That could not continue. We had to put a stop to that. We are now in a position where probably Canadians are getting less than $1 worth of service from their government for the dollar they are paying in terms of taxation. That will continue until we can bring our deficit and our debt under control.
These are tough decisions and these are tough times. I am sure that we have the will, the resolve and the wherewithal to deal with it. I recognize that there are difficulties out there. I recognize that there are unemployment problems. I am sensitive to the needs of Atlantic Canada, whether it is in the fisheries sector, the transportation sector or broadening the economic base, just as I am interested in broadening the economic base of western Canada and ensuring that there is growth, economic activity and job opportunities right across this country.
I want to deal with the equalization issue. Just for the record and before I get to the equalization issue, I want to put some other figures on the table because I believe this too is very important. I want to reiterate simply the growth of federal transfers since 1984-1985.
This is the total major federal transfers of EPF, Established Programs Financing, equalization and CAP, the Canada Assistance Plan. In 1984-1985 Newfoundland, on a per capita basis, was receiving $1,617 out of all these programs. In 1991-1992, it is receiving $2,473 per person.


An hon. member:: Oh, imagine. That is a 60 per cent increase.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The hon. member singled out Prince Edward Island as being so hard done by, by this government. In 1984-1985-and that was part of the Liberal regime; it was the leftovers of the Liberal regime-every Prince Edward Island resident was getting $1,656. Today, in 1991-1992, every Prince Edward Island resident is getting $2,417.

October 24, 1991
Supply
Let us go to New Brunswick. In 1984-1985 every New Brunswick resident was receiving $1,443 from the federal government. Today they are receiving $2,154.


An hon. member:: No wonder they can balance their budget.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In 1984-1985 every Nova Scotia resident was receiving $1,362. Today they are receiving $1,938. In Manitoba in 1984-1985 they received, on a per capita basis, $1,115 and today it is $1,718. In Quebec in 1984-1985, $1,256 and today $1,534. In Saskatchewan in 1984-1985, $727 per capita and today $1,304.


An hon. member:: That is double.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In British Columbia, $794 in 1984-1985 and in 1991-1992, $1,004. In Alberta 1984-1985, $726 per capita; today, 1991-1992, $982; and in the case of Ontario, $689 per person in 1984-1985 and $966 in 1991-1992.
I think that gives some idea of the fact that we are not cutting back; we are massively increasing. As a matter of fact transfers from the federal government to the Atlantic Provinces in the case of Prince Edward Island account for 42.3 per cent of their total government revenues. In the case of Newfoundland federal transfers account for
45.5	per cent of its total government revenues. In the case of Nova Scotia, federal government transfers account for 42 per cent of the total government revenues. In the case of New Brunswick, 39 per cent of its provincial revenues flow from the taxpayers of Canada, not the federal Government of Canada. I ask you, Madam Speaker: Is there an injustice there? Are we short changing our friends in the Atlantic region? The figures do not bear it out.
Let me deal briefly with the equalization issue. That is what has triggered this debate. This debate has not been triggered because there has been any massive reduction in equalization payments. It has been triggered by a normal recalculation that takes place on an ongoing basis.
Just to refresh our memory, the equalization program is designed to enable the provincial governments to provide reasonably comparable public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation. It is a vital example of our national spirit of equality and mutual support. As hon. members have pointed out it is enshrined in the
Constitution. We consider it to be very important. It is part of the sense of equality in giving Canadians equal opportunity and equal services across the country.
I repeat again equalization is not being cut. It has not been cut this year. It has not been cut last year and it is not going to be cut in the years ahead. In fact the entitlements of provinces for 1991-92 are expected to rise by $250 million over the last year's level, as I have said, for a total of $8.3 billion or $8.4 billion. It will be expected to increase to $9.48 billion in the year 1992-93.
As I said, while we have had program expenditure increases of roughly 3.6 per cent or 3.5 per cent, this program has been the fastest growing program of all government programs, growing at an annualized rate of 8.3 per cent.
We can talk until we are blue in the face, criticize the formula and criticize the legislation, but all that is happening here is that we are applying the legislation. It is a normal procedure. Equalization payments are provided to the eligible provinces in advance on the basis of the best guessed estimates and a preliminary set of standards, and as more accurate information becomes available these adjustments are made.
This process is well understood by the provinces. It happens twice a year, usually in February and October. Often it means in most cases that we have to make additional payments to the provinces. Other times it shows that they have been overpaid. For example, in 1982-83 the adjustments under the formula meant that Saskatchewan owed the federal government approximately $100 million. I did not hear any outcry from the folks who occupied the Treasury benches then but in
1988-	89, as I said in the House the other day, and in
1989-	90 all provinces received positive adjustments: $1 billion in 1988-89 and $720 million in the next year.
This time the revised calculations show that four provinces, including three of the four Atlantic provinces, have received more that the formula allows and some will be entitled to more. For example, the provinces of Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan will receive more. The others will receive less.
There are further adjustments that will take place down the road, so that may all balance out. A decrease in equalization is caused by a reduction in current year entitlements and a decrease in entitlements for previous years, so the adjustment is done over the immediate year plus previous years gone by.
October 24, 1991

Under the rules of equalization these loans have to be recovered. It also contains a provision to ensure that the repayment of these adjustments do not impose undue hardships on the provinces. The recoveries are made over the balance of the fiscal year and can be extended into further fiscal years.
Unlike when the federal government is asked to divvy up more it has to pay immediately, but in this particular case time is provided.
As other hon. members have indicated this is a subject that could go on and on. One could use 20 to 30 minutes more in a debate like this, but I thought it was important to lay out the facts in a very statistical way to set the record straight. I hope my hon. friends opposite will not mind that.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister.
A lot of us on this side of the House have deep respect for the hard work and the hours that this minister puts in. We know he is in a tough spot right now with the economy of this country and the economies of the world. However, during his speech he talked about the fact that people are watching us in this debate today. I would suggest, with respect, that there are few Canadians who really understand these terms with billions of dollars here, hundreds of millions of dollars there.
I believe the problem we have here in this city is that people, whether from Atlantic Canada or downtown Toronto like my riding, think that we are remote from the economic pain and the suffering, whether it is job loss, businesses going under or whatever. We seem to come to Ottawa and we get involved in debate here in which the numbers are not understood.
I would suggest that part of the problem is that we are not close to the specific problems, whatever region of the country it is. I want to put an idea to the Minister of Finance who controls the Treasury of this nation. We are heading into the 125th birthday of Canada. Would he not consider it a constructive idea, a good idea, if we moved this House of Commons, a week at a time, province to province, right across the country, including the territories so that we could get beyond the numbers and get into the communities supporting colleagues who are
Supply
trying day in and day out to explain the suffering that is going on?
We have a problem with hospitals. Just recently a doctor friend of mine from Newfoundland said that he went to perform an operation the other day and his tools were not sharp enough. He went out and asked the nurse for more tools and was told there was no money. This is happening right across the country. I think we are becoming remote from the real problems. It is time to move this House of Commons out of Ottawa and put it on the road so that we can get closer to the people and sensitize ourselves to the problems of each other region to region and city to city.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: I appreciate the hon. member's concern reflected in the question that he asks. I guess I could say at the outset that I could not agree with him more when he talks about billions in transfers and equalization and CAP and EPF. I am sure it is very difficult for the average citizen to comprehend. Unfortunately that is the terminology that is used for the purposes of this debate. I guess that is why I really tried to translate those terms into dollars per capita. I guess that was my modest way of trying to bring it closer to the people.
With regard to the hon. member's comments about the fact that we are removed from the people, I do not know about him but I go back to my riding almost every weekend. Most of our members go back to their ridings every weekend. They are out there and they hear very much about what is going on. In our caucus and in other forums that we have around here, their views are made known very well. I think the communications effort cuts both ways. It is awfully difficult to cut back on government expenditures. Everybody wants to see the deficit reduced as long as it does not affect them. That is one of the problems that we have.
There is a sense that there is a big balloon of waste in Parliament and in Ottawa that we should simply puncture. I challenge hon. members: if they can identify that balloon of waste and bring it to my attention, I will certainly give it serious consideration. I have been personally involved in the exercise of attempting to reduce government expenditures, and it is not easy. Believe me, it is not easy. Every time you do it and you try to be as fair as you possibly can, someone's ox is gored.

October 24, 1991
Supply
The issue of moving Parliament around in 1992, the 125th anniversary of Confederation, is one for Parliament to consider. I think what has happened in terms of the modernization of the rules with three weeks of sitting and one week back in one's riding is a step in the right direction.
I know, in talking to our own members, they seem to really get a lot out of it. I know that it gives individual members a chance to do an organized tour or groups of members to do organized tours. I know our cabinet colleagues from the province of Ontario during that week did a tour of the province of Ontario. I think that will go a long way, but to take it as far as the hon. member is suggesting, I suspect that there would be some criticism on the other side involving the cost for doing that. I guess it is a balance. I appreciate the hon. member's sentiment.


Mr. Marc Ferland (Portneuf):: Madam Speaker, this morning, the minister gave us a demonstration of what equalization means and how taxpayers get a return on their investment as federal funding is directed to all parts of Canada. However, Canadians are still rather confused. They often get the impression that equalization includes all federal transfers. Perhaps the minister would care to expand on this and tell the House what the Maritimes have received in addition to equalization payments. I am thinking, for instance, of the frigates contracts and Hibernia, and contracts awarded by CIDA in Western Canada for the purchase of food and other items. Perhaps the minister could further clarify, for the benefit of Canadian taxpayers, what equalization means, and also mention federal "spin-offs" that benefit all Canadian taxpayers, such as purchase contracts, for instance.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's question. I did not want this debate to get into chequebook federalism. I simply wanted to put on the record the facts that are existent and to lay it out in such a way as to demonstrate to hon. members that there is not a surprise or something unusual happening here. It is a normal course of events.
I guess that could apply for any reason. In western Canada we have the Western Diversification Program which provides assistance to broadening the economic base. We have the Northern Ontario Development Program. We have a regional development program in Quebec. We have programs in Ontario, for example, DIP. All these are in addition to the transfer payments that we talk about. We then go to the Atlantic region where we have support for the fisheries industry. We have had contracts that have been released to the Halifax-Dartmouth industries for the building of new vessels and new mine sweepers. We had the largest contract ever awarded by the Government of Canada, the frigate contract, to Saint John Shipbuilding. We also have ACOA.
ACOA has been a success story. It was not a program devised by the Liberal Government of Canada. It was devised by this government. It was devised by the members who represent the Atlantic region. It has been a program that has worked very well because it involves community. It involves the grassroots. It involves small business. It has created jobs and new opportunities and has broadened the economic base.
I think that those are dollars well spent. Those are the kinds of programs that will lift Atlantic Canada out of the kind of situation that it has experienced for many years. Hopefully, rather than being a recipient province under equalization, it will be a contributing province. I think that would be the desire of all Atlantic Canadians and that would be the desire of Quebecers as well.
What we are doing here is providing grants through Established Programs Financing, through equalization, through the Canada Assistance Program, to provide some equality of service right across the board. In addition, we are attempting to provide for programs that will encourage the enterprise skills and the innovative skills to be developed clearly to create jobs in long-term economic activity and prolonged and durable sustainable growth.


Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Madam Speaker, we are here today to discuss the following motion:
That this House condemn the government for reducing the level of transfer payments to the Atlantic provinces, thereby threatening the stability of health care and education, and further condemn the
October 24, 1991

government for its destructive policies toward the fishery, the
railway and the post office.
What we are really talking about here is the problem of regional inequalities in Canada. If this government were serious about addressing those regional inequalities it would look at the economies of Atlantic Canada, the state of those economies and the difficulties those economies face. It would develop policies and strategies to address really and truly those concerns and to address the concerns of the people living in those provinces: people who have lost their jobs, lost their communities, lost their hope as a result of the economic policies which have failed.
If this government were committed to fairness across this country, fairness in opportunity, fairness in job opportunities, fairness for those in rural areas, fairness for those who have lost their jobs, it would address these worst case scenarios and it would address those regions in Canada which are suffering the most.
If we move out of the golden horseshoe or out of parts of Alberta and parts of British Columbia the economies of this country are in serious trouble. My own province of Saskatchewan in the last decade, as a result of pursuing the same policies that the federal government pursued, has lost almost 10 per cent of its population. Consumer bankruptcies are at record high levels. Business bankruptcies are at record high levels. Farm bankruptcies are at record high levels. Agricultural land held by financial institutions is at a record high level.
These economic policies in the regions of Canada have failed. We need a government which will re-orient economic policies to address inequality, to address the diversity of opportunities across this country.
If we look around the world, for example at the Thatcher government in England or the Reagan and Bush regimes in the United States, we see enormous equalities that have built up as a result of the pursuit of neo-conservative economic policies which have failed. The whole north of England is awash with unemployment, welfare and despair, and huge tracts of the United States are facing the same problem.
We need policies which address the concerns of people, which address these inequalities. Instead what we have had are big business agendas, the free trade
Supply
agreement, an obsession with competition and the role of private capital.
If we look at the regions of Canada and at Atlantic Canada we can see that private capital and competition harshly judge these areas. We can see that the hinterland areas of Canada, which constitute most of Canada, are not well received when those with money to invest seek to invest that money. They would rather invest their money in Toronto real estate than they would in the creation of jobs in Newfoundland or New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island or Nova Scotia.
There is more money to be made by investing in Toronto real estate than there is in creating jobs and opportunities for those in Atlantic Canada.
The strategies that the government pursued, the strategies of leaving job creation to the marketplace, to private capital, will not work in places like Atlantic Canada. They cannot work, have never worked and never will work.
We are now receiving policies from the federal government in addition to the free trade agreement which will make things more difficult and have made things more difficult for the regions of Canada, including Atlantic Canada. Now we see arguments for free trade across the provinces, for eliminating provincial trade barriers.
A recent study carried out by an economics professor at Dalhousie University points out that by making those sorts of changes to reduce provincial trade barriers there may well be savings of about $50 million a year in Atlantic Canada, a relatively modest saving to the province which can then be used for other purposes.
If instead of pursuing those objectives, the government put emphasis on reducing unemployment rates by 1 percentage point, it would increase economic activity in Atlantic Canada to over $700 million, 14 times as much as might be saved by reducing provincial trade barriers. This government concentrates on reducing provincial trade barriers. It does not concentrate on providing programs to generate employment in those regions.
If we look, as I will in a moment, at the economies of those regions, they are in desperate straits. They are in decline in terms of jobs in the economy, but of course the one growth in those areas is the number of unemployed even though many people have been forced to leave their communities in search of jobs elsewhere in Canada and indeed in other countries. We have economic policies from this government which have more to do with

October 24, 1991
Supply
moving people from their communities to jobs which should exist elsewhere than we have in taking jobs to those communities.
The thrust of neo-conservative economic policy is to say to people in a region where there is not much economic development: "You better move to an area where there is economic development. You better leave your community, your family, your roots and go somewhere else in search of jobs. We are not going to assist in the creation of meaningful, long-term, high quality jobs in your community".
The minister said that ACOA is a success story. Seventy-one per cent of all the business created by ACOA failed, so clearly even those minute interventionist strategies, those modest interventionist strategies have not worked because they concentrated on encouraging and assisting only private capital to come in from outside primarily and not generate the energy and the resources from within those communities.
On top of all that, on top of economic policies that have attacked those regions, the rural regions of Canada, the hinterland economies of Canada, we have seen government measures which have served to reduce the amount of money which otherwise would have gone to those provinces for health care and post-secondary education.
The minister talks about an increase in absolute dollar terms of money going to the provinces as a result of Established Programs Financing for health and post-secondary education. But for the changes the government has made, billions and billions more dollars would have gone to those provinces for education and health care. Indeed, the five-year freeze which has recently been introduced on transfer payments will result in a loss of over $13 billion to the provinces. It is $9.5 billion for health care and $3.8 billion for post-secondary education.
In a year of line-ups for health care, for surgery and of our young people being turned away from universities and colleges because of inadequate resources in those institutions and inadequate funding to provide for the education at a time when the government is stressing the need, quite rightly, for more education, for a better
educated work force in order to compete in the world economy.
Instead of investing in the future, this government is selling off the future. In addition to that, it is attacking those regions of Canada which are the least able to defend themselves; Atlantic Canada, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and the north.
We could go on at some length about the implications to the provinces as a result of cuts to Established Programs Financing, but it is sufficient to say that both Liberal and Conservative federal governments have, over the years of their operations, cut funding to those programs for health care and post-secondary education. They have instituted measures which, but for those measures, would have ensured that billions more dollars would be available to the people in Atlantic Canada and in Saskatchewan, in Manitoba and in the north to adequately serve their populations.
The important point to be made with regard to these funds going to the provinces is that they are investments in the future, in our young people, in the health of our citizens and but for these investments, this country will never get out of its economic problems and neither will we address those regional inequalities which exist across this country.
In short, if this country is about anything, it is about ensuring that Canadians, no matter where they live, should have roughly similar opportunities both in terms of employment and in terms of education and health care. To deny that equality of opportunity is to do a great disservice to those many Canadians who need the support of the federal government.
Lest we think that the economies of Atlantic Canada are in good shape, lest we think they do not need the financing which has been provided by the federal government, and in case we feel that a loss of hundreds of millions of dollars to those provinces will be unimportant, we should look at the economies of Atlantic Canada.
These economies are characterized by extremely high unemployment, by reduction in the number of jobs, by loss of population, by high family stress, and all the problems that come with the death of communities and with the loss of employment opportunities, a high
October 24, 1991

incidences of welfare and so on, but basically a loss of hope.
Most of the economies of Atlantic Canada are either stagnant or declining. In terms of employment, for example, the number of people working in those economies-in Newfoundland, between 1990 and 1991 there was a reduction of 3,500 people in the workforce, the same in Prince Edward Island, a province with a population of only 140,000-odd; almost a thousand less people working in Nova Scotia and 1,500 less working in New Brunswick.
Not only do we have a situation in which their economies are in desperate straits but they are getting worse. The only conclusion we can make from this is that federal economic policies are not working, if what those policies are doing is attempting to increase employment opportunities and economic activity in the region. Clearly also the provincial government's strategies are not working in those regions.
So we have economies which are in desperate straits in Atlantic Canada. People living in Atlantic Canada simply do not have the opportunities that people in other parts of the country have. On top of all of this, rather than assist the people in those provinces more, to have the opportunities needed to raise their families and work, we see new cuts to equalization payments. Premier Wells of Newfoundland said that when you list all of the attacks on Atlantic Canada by the federal government, these cuts to equalization payments constitute the straw that breaks the camel's back. In other words, the premiers of Atlantic Canada realize that they have been done a serious disservice by this federal government.
But in spite of all of this, in spite of the feelings of the premiers of Atlantic Canada, three Liberal premiers and one Conservative premier, in spite of Premier Wells saying that this cut to equalization payments was the straw that broke the camel's back, let us look at what the premiers said in response to what they called "this financial crisis".
The Conservative premier of Nova Scotia said they would be asking the federal government for a meeting and; "I want to emphasize not a meeting demanding more money". He said they may approach the Prime Minister to ensure that federal funding to the provinces is sufficient to maintain national standards in health care
Supply
and other social services. They "may" approach the Prime Minister to ensure that those standards are met.
The premiers of Atlantic Canada are not demanding that the federal government respond appropriately to the concerns of the people of Atlantic Canada. The three Liberal premiers and the one Conservative premier are basically saying; well, we have received a cut of over $100 million to the region but we are just going to say we do not like it, we are not going to stand up and fight against this Conservative government's cuts.
I think we can only say that it is shameful that those three Liberal premiers and that one Conservative premier are not fighting for the rights of the people of their region, are not fighting for the people who elected them, are not standing up for those people's opportunities in health care, education, employment and being able to stay in their own communities.
The government says it cannot do anything. It says that equalization payments are a formula and that the formula changes because of what goes on in the economy and that nothing basically can be done. It is just an accounting procedure that takes place and sometimes the numbers go up as a result of that accounting procedure and sometimes the numbers go down. Sometimes the provinces will get more money and sometimes less.
To the people who are affected by the loss of these millions of dollars it is a little bit different than that. It is about loss of opportunities, loss of employment and as we said before, loss of educational opportunities and loss of health care facilities.
The government forgets that when it says it cannot do anything in 1985 it did intervene to offset reductions in the 1985-1986 equalization payments to the provinces. It did provide supplements to the provinces of Atlantic Canada as a result of changes in the formula. If it did it then it can do it now. If it cared at all about the plight of people in Atlantic Canada, surely it would begin to address these concerns and make up the difference.
Another point regarding equalization payments which is worth making is that the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council has said-these are not just my words-that if Ontario had gone for a balanced budget rather than the modest deficit it introduced, then the situation in Atlantic Canada would have been much worse in terms of equalization payments. In other words, the Ontario deficit budget is something which has assisted Atlantic

Supply
Canada in making sure that the equalization payments did not reduce even further.
What that means is that Ontario is assisting to some considerable extent in the economic stabilization of the whole country while being attacked by the federal government and the Official Opposition and other provinces across this country.
While that attack is being directed towards Ontario it, in fact, as a result of its budgetary policies has assisted the less well off regions in Canada by ensuring that their equalization payments have not been reduced as much as they otherwise would.
We also have to ask why these equalization payments have reduced. Why do the have provinces have rather less to distribute in terms of equalization payments to those provinces who are less well off.
Again we have to look to the bankruptcy of federal government economic policies which clearly are not working across this country.
If I may say a few words about Saskatchewan, those same economic policies which the federal government pursues were pursued by the Conservative government in Saskatchewan until, thankfully, last Monday when they were turfed out of office by a party and a government that cares about creating jobs, cares about providing opportunities for people, cares about education and the health care system.
The very things that concern Atlantic Canadians, Saskatchewan people are concerned about as well. That is why they turfed out the government. That is why Mr. Devine and his Conservatives lost. They tried neo-conservative economic policies that simply do not work in the hinterland regions of Canada. Without a commitment from the government to make economic policy for people, those people in Atlantic Canada and those people in Saskatchewan will continue to be at a disadvantage.
We cannot allow these cuts to equalization payments to take place without criticism. We cannot allow Atlantic Canada to receive more than $100 million less than it otherwise would have received without voicing our strong opposition.
We in the New Democratic Party have called for the federal government to intervene to offset this reduction
in equalization transfer payments. We have called for more adequate Established Programs Financing transfers, instead of the federal government's contribution to health and post-secondary education reducing and reducing in percentage terms each year, so that rather than as they once paid 50 per cent of health care and post-secondary education costs in the provinces, it is now something a little over 35 per cent.
In other words, the federal government is not pulling its weight in ensuring that there is equal opportunity in those areas of health care and education across this country.
We could say a few words about the fishery and railways which are also mentioned in this resolution, but the clear point with regard to the fishery is that the strategies of this government and previous Liberal governments have been totally ineffective in ensuring the appropriate management of that fishery.
The reason we do not have enough fish for our fishermen and our fishing communities in Atlantic Canada is that the whole stock has been totally mismanaged and basically has been handed over to the interests of two large fishing corporations which really do not care about the regions they are working in but only care about making profits.
There are other ways to ensure that job opportunities can be created in these regions. We will see these other opportunities, other approaches as the New Democratic governments of Saskatchewan, British Columbia, Ontario and Yukon develop those policies as the Yukon and Ontario governments already are doing. We will see jobs created as a result of the resources within the communities rather than resorting to the only strategy that this government seems to understand, which is to resort to the marketplace, to private capital that is not interested in the creation of jobs in this economy in this country but is interested only in making profits.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Madam Speaker, one sits here in the House, quietly listening to a previous speaker and doing some work. At the same time one suddenly realizes that the speaker is missing the boat in terms of what this motion is all about.
This House condemns the federal government for reducing the level of transfer payments to the Atlantic
October 24, 1991

provinces, thereby threatening the stability of the Atlantic provinces. I heard the speaker blaming the premiers of the Atlantic provinces for the problems they have down east, never thinking to mention that it is the federal government that has caused such economic chaos in this country. The federal government has transferred that economic chaos down to Atlantic Canadians.
He stands there and he says: "Atlantic Canadian premiers are at fault because they have not challenged the federal government on this issue". What a hypocritical approach. I am sorry, but let us not transfer the guilt. The guilt is across the floor in this House of Commons, and let us make sure that the people of Canada know where the guilt lies.
Surely the previous speaker was not being partisan when he was saying that the premier of the province of Ontario had done such a wonderful job of creating a budget and that the economy of the rest of the country was being positively affected because of what that premier did. I wonder: Is there any relevance to the fact that the premier of Ontario is a New Democrat and the premiers of most of the Atlantic provinces are Liberals? Surely not. He would never be partisan in this House of Commons, would he? Never.
I would like to challenge the member of the New Democratic Party to put the onus where it belongs, that is on this government which has created economic policies in this country which are devastating especially to Atlantic Canada. I would like him to comment on that.


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to comment on that. There is clearly joint responsibilities for the situation that has arisen in this country in terms of the economic plight we find ourselves in.
Former Liberal governments cannot exonerate themselves from their contributions to creating deficits which have been inherited by this government and added to by this government. The economic policies pursued by Liberal governments in the past were also policies which did little to change the situation in Atlantic Canada, both at the federal level and at the provincial level.
Supply
The economic policies pursued by the Conservative government in Ottawa are very similar to the economic policies pursued by the Liberal government in New Brunswick.
Look at the sorts of budgetary measures made by the Liberal government in New Brunswick, cuts to government services and reductions in health care and education. The same sorts of thrusts which have driven the Conservative government in Ottawa drive those Liberal governments and Conservative governments in Atlantic Canada because they stem from the same philosophy, various conservative economic policies which put at the forefront private capital and private interests rather than the interests of their citizens.
The point I was making with regard to the responsibility of the premiers in the region was not only that their economic policies do not work either. Those three Liberal premiers and the one Conservative premier in Atlantic Canada are simply reneging on their responsibility to their citizens by not attacking this federal government's cut to equalization payments.
I quoted from newspaper stories which make it quite clear that those governments are not going to come to Ottawa to demand that something be done about matching the reductions in equalization payments. That is a complete reneging of their responsibility to their own citizens. They should be fighting for their own people. The premier of Nova Scotia and the premier of New Brunswick should be fighting to make sure that this federal government's policies do not attack the people in their region.
The premiers are not doing it and they have said they are not doing it. All I have said is that they should do it. Surely all those people in the maritimes will be agree with me on that.
With regard to Ontario, it was not I who said the Ontario budget deficit assisted Atlantic Canada in its dealings with the government over equalization payments. It was not I who said that but for the Ontario budget the equalization payments in the Atlantic region would be less than they are already are. It was the senior economist with the Atlantic Provinces' Economic Council who is not well known for supporting the New Democratic Party or its policies or the policies of Premier Rae in Ontario.

October 24, 1991
Supply
All I am saying is that on simple economic analysis, with the way that equalization payments work, the Ontario budget provided some extra stimulus to the economy which rebounded to the benefit of the Liberal and Conservative premiers and the people of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador. Ontario played a stimulative role to the economy which assisted those provinces.


Brian L. Gardiner: Madam Speaker, I just have a quick comment and then a question for the member.
I want to say that it is unfortunate the motion, while mentioning one of our most important resources in Atlantic Canada, the fishery, makes no reference to forestry. It is one of the comments that I would like to make later on in the debate. It is unfortunate that the framers of this motion did not consider giving us an opportunity to talk and expand a bit on the needs and importance of forestry in Atlantic Canada.
My comment, if that was a preamble, is just to reflect a very traditional view of voting in Atlantic Canada. It follows on the debate that was just had between the two members. Often people in my province of British Columbia say: "If there are these problems in the maritimes and Newfoundland and Labrador, why is it and who has been in office over all these years?" It has been Liberals and Conservatives.
My father always says: "One day maybe we will be lucky and hope that people there will vote for New Democrats and will form some governments that care about the people in that area".
The member made reference in his comments a number of times to the neo-conservative agenda being pursued by the government and by a number of the premiers in the Atlantic provinces. I would be interested in his comments on how that debate fits into the political debate in Canada right now.
We know that there are some who think that the Prime Minister would help the country by leaving and going to the United Nations. Others are concerned that we would not want to inflict him on the rest of the world, but with regard to the debate and rejection of the Reagan agenda, the Bush domestic agenda, there is a real rejection of these kinds of economic policies being pursued by this government.
I am wondering if the member could comment on how that fits into the political picture in the country of people identifying this government and the rejection of these neo-conservative ideas.


Chris Axworthy: Madam Speaker, last week has shown us very vividly what people in British Columbia and Saskatchewan think about the pursuit of the economic policies of this federal government, the same economic policies which were pursued by its friends, the Social Credit government in British Columbia and its friends, the Conservative government in Saskatchewan.
The population of both provinces rejected those policies because they do not work, because they are unfair, because they do not put people at the top of the economic agenda. Those countries that do put people at the top of the economic agenda-and I hate to say this; I hope it will not be seen in a partisan way-are those countries with social democratic governments: Austria, Norway, Sweden, Denmark. These countries have dealt with inflation, with interest rates and with the interests of their currencies while maintaining social services and health care programs superior to Canada's and ensuring extremely high levels of employment and very low levels of poverty.
You will do well if you put people first, if you concern yourself with peoples' interests, ensure that people work, that the economy works, that the country's economic indicators all do well, that people do not live in poverty and do have an opportunity for job opportunities, superior health care, education and so on. These government policies are bankrupt, and the people of British Columbia and Saskatchewan said so last week.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate with mixed emotions. I listened to a lot of speakers. A lot of numbers have been tossed around and a lot of reasons as to why things are getting better or why things are getting worse.
I listened to the Minister of Finance across the way, a man for whom I have an awful lot of respect. One of the phrases he uttered was that this talk is absolute nonsense. If this is the case, if this is absolute nonsense, I as him: Why is there a five-year freeze on the Established Programs Financing? Everybody had been talking about

this prior to the latest announcement the Atlantic premiers got.
Prince Edward Island would lose $12 million in transfer payments. Now the minister says that the transfer payments continue to rise. However, regarding the $12 million in the initial budget, it says here in a news report that Newfoundland in the new estimates is going to lose $110 million.
Will this not spell higher taxes? Will it not see fewer social programs? Most important, does this not sever the lifeline of Atlantic Canada? People spoke here this morning asking the Minister of Finance about the amount of money Atlantic Canada got compared to other provinces. I say to that member: yes, we would love to be a contributing province. I hope I live long enough to see the day when we are a contributing province. I believe the reason these transfer payments were put in place in the first place was to help these provinces and territories to maintain a standard of living equal to the rest of Canada.
As I see it unfolding, I believe the writing is clearly on the wall. I believe the fabric of social programs and medicare appears to be targeted as the first to go. As I said, smaller provinces and thinly populated territories will not be able to hold the system together or support the development of new or innovative specialty health programs.
How can the federal government expect small provinces to maintain national health standards when it freezes this EPF? In the past cash payments from the federal government have made it possible for Canadians to have highly developed systems of medicare and post-secondary education. Two weeks ago Premier Ghiz at the constitutional hearings in Charlottetown stated that one of his fears was that with these transfers of power to the provinces we would be a checker-board Canada with different levels of medical programs in different provinces across the country.
I believe that the health care gap can be measured by two standards: the have provinces and the have not provinces. We can translate this into terms of the people, which also translates into 10 to 11 years more longevity for the high income Canadians compared to that of low income Canadians. Moreover as our health care system advances we find people living longer lives. The cost of high-technology medical equipment is rising, but be-
Supply
cause of cuts in transfer payment, the provinces are forced either to slash essential services or to impose further taxes on an already overburdened taxpayer.
At one time Canada maintained national standards for health care and other basic services but no more. In the last budget the federal government vowed to maintain national standards through new legislation. Indeed we have a national standard: the slow death of medicare which has become the standard in every province.
In 1986 the present government finally recognized the health care gap. Let me quote what one of the Health and Welfare Canada's many documents said: "The first challenge we face is to find ways of reducing inequities in the health of low versus high income groups in Canada". Instead of doing this they introduced Bill C-69, the bill to limit funding to the provinces.
In his last budget, as in the one before it, the Minister of Finance continued to pass the buck to the provinces of this country. The federal government has simply transferred its federal fiscal problem to other levels of government. Smaller provinces will not be able to hold the system together or to support the development of new or innovative health programs. Moreover, the estimates of accumulative loss to provincial and territorial health care funding from 1986-1987 to 1994-1995 will total at least $22 billion.
It is frightening what this government is doing to what it once called a sacred trust of our community and country. With an aging population and the youth of my province having to relocate to central Canada to secure employment, P.E.I. has a higher than average age group. With this age group comes a greater demand for health care, and with a greater demand for health care of course comes a greater need for financing.
We saw what the freeze did in the federal-provincial transfer of payments in Newfoundland's last budget: 900 health care jobs and 360 hospital beds were lost due to cuts in the system. If this plan of action continues health care will be eliminated. The current medicare system, a source of national pride, respected and copied around the world will be but a dream.
In Prince Edward Island they now have to work harder and longer to achieve less than what is needed, at no fault of their own. In 1990 the average weekly earnings of industrial workers was the same as it was in 1975. What

October 24, 1991
Supply
does this tell government? This government is not even committed to students, yet this government spoke not long ago of the need to double post-secondary graduates in mathematics, the sciences and engineering. It has repeatedly said it is committed to the Canadian youth, but I believe it is only committed to telling us it is.
Each year as the population increases and more and more students realize the necessity of a higher education the demand for classroom space escalates. While the number of instructors per student declines the funding diminished.
Federal funding in post-secondary education is imperative to keep tuition fees from becoming unaffordable for most Canadians. It ensures better access to higher education for low income people and I believe this is a must. We need a strong federal presence in all social programs to ensure that Canadians will have access to similar services and similar benefits no matter where they live. A strong federal presence is impossible without a strong federal financial commitment.
As I said earlier regional disparities have always been a problem in this country. Without substantial financial contributions from the federal government, regional disparities will continue to grow and affect our national standard of living.
I ask the government: Has it forgotten that federal funding in the field of health was the incentive that led to the development of medicare in all provinces and territories?
Over 1.4 million Canadians are out of work. The number of people who receive emergency food assistance each month is over a half million, and included in this unfortunately is 186,000 children. The monetary and fiscal policies of this government have not worked since they were implemented. In fact they have worked solidly against what we elected members of Parliament need to work toward, and that is making Canada a better place.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -
Canso): Madam Speaker, a few weeks ago here in the House of Commons the Prime Minister unveiled his government's constitutional proposals, calling on Canadians to join him in shaping Canada's future together. In his remarks the Prime Minister said that his government's proposals have one simple but nevertheless critical and crucial objective: to build a stronger and more prosperous Canada where all Canadians can feel at home.
These are fine sentiments but they have a hollow ring in Atlantic Canada. For decades we have known the indignity of being the have not provinces, the poor cousins of Confederation. For generations the best and the brightest of our young people have all too often had to search for prosperity elsewhere because there was no opportunity for them to use their talents at home.
In recent years we have watched the slow and in some cases rapid decline of the pillars of our economy: ship building, the fishery and coal and steel in Cape Breton. We have had to accept unemployment insurance payments as a main component of our income and endure the condescension that has accompanied that dependence. Regional development has come to mean a code word for: we do not measure up.
The sense of being a have not region, of having to rely on Ottawa for regional assistance, has seeped into our consciousness in Atlantic Canada. It has reflected itself in our literature, in our music and even in our humour. It has eroded our pride. It has on occasion spilled out in violent confrontation, though we are not by nature violent.
The occupations of the fisheries officers in Port aux Basques recently or confrontations at the gates of the Sydney Steel plant are simply a manifestation of the frustrations we all face.
Last week I was in my constituency of Cape Breton Highlands- Canso where the official unemployment rate is in the order of 23 per cent. But everyone there knows that the percentage of the labour force out of work is much higher. Collie Herman Chisholm, the seasoned and generally optimistic mayor of Antigonish, told me when I asked him, because he remembers, that the job situation locally has never been this bad, not even during the great depression. He was calling me about the rail line from Truro to Sydney, which goes through Antigonish and which CN announced recently it was proposing to sell to a private bidder.
October 24, 1991

The main customer on this line is Stora Forest Industries, a pulp and paper mill located at Point Tupper on the Strait of Canso. It directly employs some 2,300 workers. The CN announcement came as Stora and its parent in Sweden, Stora Kopperberg, were considering modernization and expansion plans involving some $500 million to $600 million. Without some form of modernization in order to enable Stora to compete in the international pulp and newsprint market of the future, the president of Stora, Tom Hall, has suggested the mill would become non-competitive and die. That would spell catastrophe for the economy of eastern Nova Scotia and the thousands of families who depend in one way or another on this industry.
For Stora, guaranteed and reliable access to rail is absolutely vital. The uncertainty caused at this moment, even by CN's consideration of these plans which are objected to by everybody including the premier of Nova Scotia, could well be the factor that causes Stora's parent in Sweden to choose to invest elsewhere.
Yet, in the face of this CN persists and both ministers of transport refuse to intervene to stop this ludicrous move. No wonder the Prime Minister's invitation to participate in constitutional renewal has a hollow ring in Atlantic Canada.
A week or so ago I was in Baddeck where Judy MacDonald, a housewife and mother, took the time to write down her thoughts for me on the economic situation in Cape Breton in the wake of the Prime Minister's constitutional initiative.
I regret that time permits me to quote only a small portion of Judy's letter. She speaks for many in Cape Breton when she writes:
Much has been made of how hard central Canada has been hit by the recession. The joke around here is: "There is a recession. Someone should tell Cape Breton". The economy has gone from bad to worse. People in the depressed parts of Canada such as Cape Breton at this time cannot raise concerns about the Constitution or issues like it because they are trying to make ends meet and in extreme cases keep warm, fed and clothed. This is being interpreted as apathy toward our constitutional problems which is simply not the case. The only special status Cape Breton has is starvation.
Lately this House has devoted a fair deal of time and attention to the plight of the western farmer. Atlantic Canadians feel empathy for the western farmer. They
Supply
were inclined to be happy and supportive when at the urging of this party the government, admittedly on the eve of an election in Saskatchewan, came through with an $800 million package.
However, it is awfully hard for us not to feel shortchanged and betrayed when the fishermen in Newfoundland and Labrador, who this year faced a total collapse of their fishery, received a paltry $39 million in recycled money. The timing of this package was contrived to exclude other deserving fishermen in Atlantic Canada like the herring fishermen in the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence in Antigonish County who also faced a collapse of their catches and their income.
Then of course there is the government's refusal to assist the Scotia Synfuels project which has been under development for 10 years and which is tailor-made for the Cape Breton economy. The Synfuels project will create some 2,000 jobs. It will create a clean use for Cape Breton's most abundant resource, coal, and contribute to Canada's energy security. It is just as viable as Hibernia or OSLO or Syncrude or the Lloydminister upgrader project on the Saskatchewan and Alberta border into which the federal government has poured hundreds of millions of dollars.
Yet, on September 27, on the eve of the Saskatchewan election, the Lloydminister upgrader which straddles by coincidence the ridings represented by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture received an additional $175 million on top of nearly $300 million from a supposedly cash starved, deficit conscious federal government.
Nova Scotians are praying for a provincial election. They want an opportunity to throw out the incompetent, corrupt, Buchanan Tory government. They are starting to realize that perhaps if we have a provincial election we might get Ottawa to move and provide some of the assistance they have been denying us over the last several months. It seems that only provincial elections are what get this government moving.
This week the four provinces of Atlantic Canada received news that their entitlements under the equalization payments program for 1991 had fallen by some $140 million below what had been budgeted.

Supply
Yesterday and the day before, when we raised this matter during Question Period, all the Minister of Finance could do was to wave his arms helplessly and say that this was outside this control.
The equalization payments were determined by a formula, and the formula was written into legislation. The equalization payments are based on a formula, but what go into the formula are the tax bases of five of the provinces: Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba, British Columbia and Saskatchewan.
The size of these tax bases depends on the level and the growth of provincial income, in other words on the strength of the economy of places like Ontario. Everybody knows that this government's policies have created a recession which has crippled the Ontario manufacturing sector and flattened the Ontario economy so that the Ontario tax base, which is the principal generator of entitlements under the equalization formula has not been able to generate the entitlements.
Why did the government create this recession? It created this recession to squelch a bout of inflation which it created three years ago by abandoning its so-called commitment to the deficit, to deficit reduction, in order to buy the 1988 election.
It did this by jacking up real interest rates, pushing up the value of the Canadian dollar, choking off investment, stifling exports and killing jobs in Atlantic Canada as well as in Ontario. It did not matter that we in Atlantic Canada were not the source of the inflation. We had to swallow the medicine anyway so we got it both ways from this government.
Its economic policies have stifled our ability to generate wealth and jobs through exports and expansion, making us more dependent on equalization payments. Now, by crushing the economy that generates the source of these payments, the government denies them as well.
The Minister of Finance yesterday suggested that we on this side of the Flouse had a problem with the equalization payments formula. We have no problem with the equalization payments formula. The formula works. It is his economic policies that do not work.
It is time that this government stopped treating Atlantic Canadians like an appendage. It is time that this
government started realizing that we are part of this country and, if the government wants us to be a part of constitutional renewal, it has to treat our economies as just as important as those economies of the rest of this country.


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member.
If he had the opportunity to listen to the Minister of Finance today in the debate, I think a lot of the comments he made that this government does not pay attention and does not have concern for the eastern part of this country would be laid to rest.
I think he made that very clear. This bill today was triggered by an adjustment in the equalization payments. He admits that the formula is good, that it works. He had some argument with the amount of money that was adjusted, that three of the four provinces in the eastern part of this great country had a reduction while one had an increase. His province is one that had an increase, Nova Scotia, through the adjustments.
Two years ago through this adjustment program provinces realized a billion dollars more than they had budgeted which allowed a lot of provinces in eastern Canada to balance their budgets. Last year some $750 million went to provinces under the formula to help balance their budgets. Some of them came out with balanced budgets. God knows the federal government did not. It is something we would love to do one of these days. We have a plan to do that by 1995.
I take exception to the hon. member saying what he did because of the facts that have been laid out by the Minister of Finance this morning in the per capita help for the eastern provinces.
I am from central Ontario and I do not begrudge one bit of that. I wish in our province we could have 42, 46 or 47 per cent of our budget coming from the federal government. We do not. We have because of our geographical location a lot of advantages that the out-reaches of this country do not have. We are prepared to pay our fair share and are doing that.
For the hon. member to stand and say that this government does not care or have concern for the eastern part of this country is not fair. As a matter of fact we have put together ACOA, a program exclusively for
October 24, 1991

the eastern part of this country to diversify the economy, to encourage growth there. None of these organizations are ever funded enough because they always want more and more and more. There is no question about that, and the financial pressures on the government are tremendous at this time from all walks of life.
My comment is that it was totally unfair for him to say that. The facts would show this government does care and does spend a lot of its time both as a government and in cabinet on the concerns of eastern Canada.


Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands -Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the minister for his comments. I would like to correct some of the impressions which he received from my speech a minute ago.
The point of the argument and the point that people in Atlantic Canada are trying to make to this government is not that our underlying aim is to get more equalization payments. It is that we are seeking to strengthen our economy so that we will not have to depend on equalization payments.
The reason our equalization payments went up in the years between 1984 and 1988 is simply that the relative disparity between our economies and the economy of Ontario, which was generating a large chunk of the equalization payments, increased. That is the problem and the issue before us here.
We are seeking some assistance to be able to pull our weight in Confederation. We are looking for a government that is not just simply justifying handouts but is actually working with the people of Atlantic Canada to build a stronger economy.
I do not have time to talk about ACOA. Let me just say this about ACOA. ACOA, which came forth with such great promise, has not delivered on that promise in Atlantic Canada. That would be the subject of another debate and one which would be good for us to have in this House.


John Horton McDermid: I agree with the hon. member. Maybe ACOA has not fulfilled the promise that we would like to think it has. The point is that we have done something. We have actually put a program down there that I believe in many instances is working, and that is a debate for another time.
Supply
The point he is making is that he is not objecting about the transfer payments. He understands that and everything else. The motion we are debating says that this House condemns the government for reducing the level of transfer payments to the Atlantic provinces. We are not doing that.
The motion is absolutely incorrect. He stands here and says: "That is not what we are debating today. We are debating the diversity of the economy in eastern Canada. We will debate that at another time". He is absolutely right. That is the motion today. My point is that the motion is wrong.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, may I have 30 seconds to respond to those comments?


Mr. Van  De Walle@Acting Speaker: Twenty seconds.


Francis G. LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the motion is not incorrect. The point of my speech is that the government has reduced transfer payments by weakening the economy that is generating those transfer payments.


Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today about this subject because I am also one of those who is working day in and day out to strengthen the Atlantic economy and to strengthen it on a long-term basis.
I must say that the previous speaker, the hon. member from Cape Breton, has not been really straight with this House or straight with his constituents when he blames the economic circumstances of Canada today on the policies of this government.
He makes no reference at all to the 20 years or more of deficit spending that his predecessor government conducted in this country. It left us with a burden of debt that we have not been able to service without incurring continuing deficits.
Only through the budget recoveiy plan introduced by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre when he was Minister of Finance and now being carried on by the hon. Deputy Prime Minister do we have any prospect of ultimately eradicating that deficit, balancing our budget and commencing to pay down the tremendous debt with

Supply
which we have been left as a heritage of more than two decades of Liberal governments.
For the hon. member from Cape Breton to gloss over that fact is to mislead his constituents and to mislead the entire Atlantic region in their perception of the economic circumstances which we face.
The situation in which we find ourselves today and the motion by the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls are based on an October calculation of equalization payments that unfortunately has resulted in shortfalls from expectations in the equalization revenues of three of the provinces in the Atlantic region. The worst of those has occurred in my own province of New Brunswick where it appears that the expectation will be short in excess of $100 million, amounting to about 2.61 per cent of the annual entitlement of $4.2 billion.
I think it is important to put our mind around that subject. The equalization entitlement to New Brunswick is $4.2 billion. On this occasion it appears that the follow-up data that reinforce the estimates on which these formulas are built indicate that the expectation in the estimates were too high and the past payments were too high. This adjustment occurs as a result of a formula that has been enshrined in legislation for many years, long before this government took office. It continues to be enshrined with the same formula that pertains today as it did then. That formula has on this occasion sadly resulted in a shortfall of expectations.
I sympathize with the ministers of finance in those provinces who have to experience that shortfall, who have to confront the reality that their budgets are going to be seen to be too ambitious, too optimistic, and who are going to have to adjust them downward.
It has not always been a shortfall situation. Regarding New Brunswick, I have a clipping from the Saint John Telegraph Journal of July 5, 1990 in which the hon. minister of finance for the province of New Brunswick advised that he was experiencing great exaltation as a result of a windfall of $47 million, a surplus beyond expectations. His estimates were too conservative and the realities of the transfer from the federal government were to be $47 million higher than he expected. This process of formula financing works out over time to
produce the truth that the equalization formula is intended to reveal.
I would like to read into the record a few other facts. I am going to address particularly the New Brunswick circumstances this morning because New Brunswick had by far the greatest hit in terms of the decrease of budget expectations as a result of this October adjustment calculation of the equalization payment.
Major federal transfers to New Brunswick will total an increase of about 4.4 per cent over 1991-92. Per capita, New Brunswick will receive over $2,200 per person in 1992-93 which is almost 75 per cent higher than the national average. That is a statistic which demonstrates that the equalization concept is working.
The budget change in EPF transfers which I will address later on will account for only two-tenths of one per cent of provincial revenues in 1992. It is a negligible decrease. Again it is a decrease in expectation, not a decrease in dollars.
The major federal transfers will continue to account for a very high percentage of New Brunswick's total revenue. More than 39 per cent of New Brunswick's 1992-93 budget will come from federal transfers.
I would say that the only slashing and burning, as somebody has characterized the adjustment calculations, taking place is the abuse of fact. As the minister emphasized earlier this morning-and I am glad to repeat it-federal transfers to the provinces are not being cut. The Atlantic provinces are not being singled out. Health care and education are not being placed at risk.
I would just like to say that with respect to Established Programs Financing, the foundation for federal transfers to education and health, the total dollars to New Brunswick were $543 million in 1989-90. They were $546 million in 1990-91, and they will be over $550 million this year. They will grow in actual dollars again next year.
It is an abuse of fact when people say that EPF funding has been cut. The rate of growth of EPF funding has been cut and there are good reasons for that, which I will also get to in a moment. What is really happening is that our federal government is continuing to implement and build on the agenda for economic recovery which we introduced last February.
October 24, 1991

It is a plan for a strong, solid recovery that is already helping to put the recession behind us and set the foundations for continuing non-inflationary growth. It is a plan that asks Canadians, including other levels of government, to work more effectively in a partnership for prosperity.
Not surprisingly the budget had important implications for federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, particularly for parts of the system and major transfers to provinces which consist of equalization, Established Programs Financing and the Canada Assistance Plan. These programs account for more than 90 per cent of all funding from the federal government to the provinces to help pay for a variety of very important services right across Canada.
For decades the federal government has provided large and growing financial support to the provinces in these respects. This year alone total federal transfers including both cash and tax transfers will reach almost $37 billion. Just the cash portion of the transfers accounts for one-fifth of all federal program spending.
Again let me echo the words of the minister. These transfers are simply too large to exempt from our expenditure restraint program. The deficit is a national problem and it demands a national solution. More important, it should be understood that in slowing the growth of transfer payments the federal government is seeking to encourage all levels of government to live realistically within their means, just as the federal government itself is called upon to do with its own programs.
It is significant to understand that for the past seven years the federal level of spending has grown at the rate of 3.7 per cent, versus a provincial average of 7.2 per cent. It just makes common sense that the federal government, in its responsibility on behalf of all Canadians, has to ask the other levels of government which constitute such a large part of its total expenditure program to restrain their spending within limits that are imposed upon the federal government itself.
The measures announced in the 1990 budget included a per capita freeze on EPF transfers. Although EPF transfers in total will continue to grow, as I have said in the New Brunswick case, with the population of each province, they will be frozen until 1994-95 at present
Supply
rates of growth. There will continue to be no limit on Canada Assistance Plan contributions to less wealthy provinces. In addition, equalization transfers to the less wealthy provinces have been totally exempted from the budget expenditure controls.
For this motion to suggest that the levels of equalization transfers have been reduced is, as the hon. minister said earlier, simply not so.
The measures we have taken bring the growth of federal-provincial transfers into line with the current fiscal realities. In fact the rate of transfers will be at 3.7 per cent, whereas the rate of federal spending in all other areas will be at 3.4 per cent.
I am convinced that most Canadians know that the deficit and the debt are serious problems that must be solved. They know that firm determined action is needed to solve these problems. They believe this should be carried out with the least possible adverse impact on those in the greatest need. That is the way that the equalization formula and the application of the changes to the EPF funding and to the CAP funding have all been designed.
In the 1989 budget the government set out a medium term fiscal plan to reduce the deficit sharply and to bring an end to new government borrowing in financial markets by 1994-1995. That will be a welcome day. The 1990 budget reaffirmed this plan and introduced a program of expenditure control to meet it.
However, because the recession revenues are now lower than forecast, expenditures are higher due to the weak economy. We have an even more difficult road as we work toward that very enviable prospect of a balanced budget some day.
The motion which is before us refuses to recognize the importance of deficit reduction and debt control. It implies that we should not only be spending more than ever but that we should be making no effort to set reasonable limits on future spending growth. Of course that is hardly surprising. Both parties of the opposition have impeccable credentials when it comes to living the philosophy of credit card finance: spend now, borrow more tomorrow, and worry about the consequences next year or next decade. It is easy to contemplate and talk

October 24, 1991
Supply
only about sharing the wealth when one does not take any responsibility for creating it.
The problem is that next year or next decade is now. We have seen how living beyond our country's means, including provincial transfers that increase at a rate well above inflation, can lead to a growing burden of public debt. In 1984 when this government took office the federal government was handing out $1.33 in programs and services for every $1 it collected in taxes. Mr. Speaker, how long could you live on your budget if you were spending $1.33 on services for every $1 you were earning? That was no bargain then and it is no bargain now. In fact we are now paying the price over and over again for too many years of consuming more government service than we were willing to pay for.
This fiscal year our public debt is forecast to reach $419 billion. That is more than $15,000 for every man, woman and child in Canada. The interest rate alone on the debt will eat up more than $43 billion this year, more than we spend on old age security, unemployment insurance and family allowances combined.
In the 1991 budget the government has asked Canadians to share the burden of further financial restraint. We recognize the sacrifices that many Canadians have already made in the name of restraint and we know there will be some reluctance to accept the necessity for more of the same.
If we took no steps to deal with this worsening fiscal situation, the deficit would be much higher than the forecast by many billions of dollars. This would aggravate all of the fundamental problems which must be solved if we are to ensure a strong recovery and a return to prosperity in the years ahead. Further increased spending would only make the debt problem that much worse.
In the 1991 budget the government has taken the tough responsible decisions necessary to ensure Canada's finances become healthy again. As a result of measures announced in that budget the government will hold the deficit to $30.5 billion this year. Despite the pressures of the recession the deficit will fall in 1992-1993 to $25 billion below that level for the first time in more than a decade. Growth in program spending will be held to an average of no more than 3 per cent in the years after 1991-1992 on an annual basis and the need for new federal borrowing in financial markets will
be eliminated after 1993-1994. The 1991 budget includes measures providing Canadians with added assurances that these targets will be met.
In a significant change that alters the way that government manages expenditures we have released draft legislation which will impose mandatory limits on annual program spending for the next five years. That is the first time in history that the Government of Canada has legislated in law its spending restraints and budget limitations. We have tabled legislation to set up the debt servicing and reduction fund and have committed that all revenues from the goods and services tax and from privatization will go to the servicing of the deficit and the reduction of the debt. These revenues will be applied first against the servicing of the debt and, as they grow over time, will be used to reduce the outstanding debt.
The effort to reduce spending and the deficit will be reinforced by these government decisions to set its targets clearly in law. Through the plan for economic recovery the federal government will take action to establish fiscal stability and to strengthen confidence in Canada's future.
I know my time is running short, but I want to make a very important illustration of the importance of federal transfers to Atlantic Canada. In Atlantic Canada the total of all forms of federal spending and financial contribution in 1988 was $8.2 billion more than the contribution of revenues from Atlantic Canada to the federal Treasury. These figures are three years old and are in fact higher today. That represents $3,600 per person in Atlantic Canada. As I say, that is a higher figure today. In 1988 those figures in Newfoundland were $2.4 billion; in Prince Edward Island it was $600,000 per year; $3 billion in Nova Scotia; and $2.2 billion in New Brunswick.
It is clear in the context of this debate that the federal government is not diminishing its commitment to Atlantic Canada. These figures speak extremely strongly for the Atlantic commitment to a strong Canadian entity, a prospering, and lasting Canadian unification.
I do not think anything could speak in fiscal terms more abundantly and more clearly than do these numbers. The impact of them is not well understood by Atlantic Canadians. It is a subject that as we contemplate our place in Canada we have to confront realistically and
October 24, 1991

not with the misleading implications of this motion or those on the other side who have spoken to it.
The adjustments that we have seen today in the equalization formula do not represent a threat to the welfare of Atlantic Canada. This is not a special burden being placed on the maritimes or on Newfoundland. It is a reflection of a continuing equalization program that is strong, lasting and valuable. It is a continuing commitment to share the benefits of Canada among all of its citizens.
It is also important that we share the challenge of getting our punishing national debt under control. It also addresses that. Exempting provinces from this challenge of debt reduction would be indeed to treat them as second-class citizens. The ultimate result would be to put Canada in jeopardy of becoming a second-class country.
Just as I finish, I should say as well that the entire system of federal-provincial transfers may well need adjustment. Perhaps it is time. I understand the Minister of Finance has sent some signals that in 1992 and subsequently those formulas may be reviewed and readjusted. For example, the regular recalculations under the equalization plan obviously do pose problems for provincial budgetary planning and program management.
I can sympathize with the ministers of finance in those provinces who today have to adjust their prospects. As stated in the February budget, the system of transfers to the provinces including equalization will be reviewed with a view to examining reforms that may be necessary.
Recommendations from the Atlantic provinces' premiers and their ministers of finance, such as those from their meetings yesterday and today, will be very helpful. They will help this federal government to reinforce Canadian Confederation as a fiscally sound and responsible agency, able not only to defend the financial sovereignty of this country but to share the dividends of prosperity in this country with all who participate in this Confederation, including the Atlantic region.


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly commend my colleague on his excellent presentation of some of the problems connected with the Atlantic provinces. With a background in medicine I am certainly
Supply
sympathetic toward the problems with financing education and medical care in these areas.
I was impressed with the figure that the maritimes in 1988 were net benefactors of $8.2 billion. Coming from one of the have provinces which this year has had its contribution from the federal government capped at a much lower rate, I would like to ask the hon. member just what his long-term plans and goals are in order to reduce the dependence of the maritime provinces upon federal financing.
As I say, coming from a have province, we certainly could understand and are sympathetic toward the maritimes provinces and the plight they had with the fishing industry and their mining problems. We understand that, but we would like to know just what goals and plans they have in order to reduce their dependence on the tremendous numbers of dollars being funnelled into those economies.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I must set my colleague quite straight at the beginning. He speaks with some sense of patronage. I know him well and he is not normally a patronizing man.
I want to make it clear that these transfers to the Atlantic provinces are not handouts. These are dividends to the Atlantic provinces for their roles in Confederation. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were equal partners of four in the creation of this country.
In the beginning nobody knew or could see where all the prosperity would occur. As with any investment or with any undertaking, original founders are entitled to share the dividends indefinitely.
The equalization formula of this country puts it in that perspective. I would like to disabuse my hon. friend of any notion that this is a handout, charity or anything of that nature.
I would like to go on further and tell him that we in Atlantic provinces are using our utmost initiative to take the fruits of those dividends, to invest them wisely and to help ourselves.
I must say with great credit to the Government of New Brunswick and to Premier Frank McKenna that in the past several years he has demonstrated perhaps the best

October 24, 1991
Supply
rate of economic growth of any province in Canada amid circumstances which are very difficult.
That is why I would chide my good friend, his minister of finance, for making such a big issue of this $100 million recalculation and shortfall in his equalization fund. It was only a year ago that he was certainly expressing great pleasure and pride at the achievements of his budgetary calculations when he had a $47 million windfall.
ACOA, which is doing much better than even the hon. minister acknowledged a few minutes ago in his intervention, has put some very significant infrastructure elements in place. The Research and Productivity Council in my home riding of Fredericton has been endowed with something like $20 million. This has helped to make it one of the foremost research and development entities for business and enterprise that would otherwise not have the availability of those facilities.
That kind of investment will in the long run pay off in very large dividends. We have seen historically in New Brunswick the performances of the Irving organization and the McCain organization and dozens of others of less noble reputation but every bit as deserving of accolades on perhaps a smaller scale.
There is no shortage of the entrepreneurial spirit and the building spirit in New Brunswick or in any other part of Atlantic Canada. I would have to say to my hon. friend that the dividends we share from Confederation at this point will be well invested and the day may come in the long-range future when we may be sharing them in the opposite direction.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question.
I would just like to refer to an article in the paper today with regard to the comments made in the last election by this government in which its main theme was jobs, jobs, jobs. Here we are with 1.3 million people unemployed and we have nothing but excuses, excuses, excuses.
I say to the member: when we see these kinds of activities taking place, especially in our Atlantic provinces where the unemployment is that high, this government has not addressed the problem of the jobs, jobs, jobs and yet the commitment was made.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, the figures with respect to employment since this government took office in 1984 to this point in 1991 are very dramatic, very constructive and very positive. You have to read them all in context.
We know that we are going through a recession. We know that we have had dramatic problems in the fishery of almost an unnatural nature beyond man's control. We have addressed those.
The hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, just a couple of weeks ago, was able to introduce a budgetary measure to bring relief to the fishermen in Atlantic Canada and parts of Quebec who are experiencing this terrible, drastic circumstance in the fishery.
In the long run, however, the application of the ACOA program and the application of the transfer system have produced successes such as I have just described by Mr. McKenna in New Brunswick. We are going to see tremendous success in Newfoundland in the months and years to come as a result of the Hibernia investment, again sponsored by this government. I believe we are going to see a recovery in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island as well.
In response to the question I would say that the measures taken by this government since 1984 have already reflected increased employment, significantly increased employment. The painful experiences of recent months with respect to the unemployment created by the recession will be resolved by the measures taken during those recent months and will reflect themselves in an increasing employment and prosperity in Atlantic Canada in the year ahead and the years to follow.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague for Fredericton- York-Sunbuiy a question in a bit of a different vein. He or I may disagree on whether the government's attempts at economic development through fiscal transfers, equalization, EPF and special economic regional development agreements have been sufficient or whether they have increased or decreased. I think we could argue those points fairly eloquently all day, but I want to ask him a question in a different vein.
The member is a representative of a riding in Atlantic Canada, a riding that is not terribly dissimilar to other ridings like my own in Atlantic Canada. As a member of Parliament, not as a Liberal, I ask him: Does he think that the Atlantic provinces and premiers in the coming weeks or months as the constitutional negotiations go on have to coalesce their desires and their aspirations? In
October 24, 1991

particular, does he believe that there is a necessity to accelerate the economic union talks that are currently going on?
I know that his premier in New Brunswick is fully supportive of it. My premier in Nova Scotia is fully supportive, as is the premier in P.E.I., and Newfoundland is participating as an observer at least.
Does the member believe that the true answer to economic development in the Atlantic region is in a concerted effort by all of the provincial premiers to have an economic union so we can speak as one region? Does he also believe that there are some political bodies, boards or institutions which we could start looking at? When we deal with the federal government, which has conflicting demands placed on it from a very large Ontario, a very distinct Quebec and a very large and expansive west, would it be his view that the best approach for Atlantic Canada to get out of its perpetual position of disparity is to accelerate those talks on maritime economic union and to look at some political boards or bodies so that we can, in the future, represent our joint and collective interest to the federal government as one body as opposed to four different provincial legislatures?


John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I think unity and prosperity in this country go together. In my address I made the point, all too little known frankly and little appreciated, about just how dramatically dependent we are on our Confederation dividends from the rest of Canada. I said the figure was $8.2 billion in 1988 and it is larger now, $3,600 per person.
If any area of Canada has a vested interest in the unity of this country it is Atlantic Canada. I want to say here and now that I stand proudly and strongly and irrevocably in support of one unified country.


An hon. member:: So do we all.


John Williston (Bud) Bird: I have no doubt about that.
As to joining our efforts in Atlantic Canada, yes, we should do so wherever it makes sense. At the same time, however, we have our own characteristics as provinces. I am not sure, for example, that we should ask the Acadians to subordinate their culture and their distinctive identify into a larger amalgam simply because it makes good sense to be larger. I am not at all sure that it is better to have one voice than four voices, but it does make sense to co-operate as much as we can.


Mr. Van  De Walle@Acting Speaker: Shall we call it one o'clock?


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, if I might have a moment.


Mr. Van  De Walle@Acting Speaker: Thirty seconds.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to say to you that rather than commence my remarks at this point I would be delighted if you would call it one o'clock.


Mr. Van  De Walle@Acting Speaker: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

[Stage Direction]
[English)

Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, in February 1991 at the Prime Minister's request the University Research Committee of the Royal Society of Canada released the report Realizing the Potential: A Strategy for University Research in Canada. I wish to express my enthusiasm for that report which seems to have been forgotten by the government which is so preoccupied with the bottom line.
I would especially urge the government to accommodate the report's recommendation that the budget of the three research councils be increased. I know that the government is concerned with the deficit. I agree that we must spend within our limits the money we have to spend.
I also agree with one of Canada's foremost entrepreneurs Mr. John Panabaker of Mutual Life that the recommended expenditure on research council, which is

less than one-tenth of 1 per cent of the GNP over five years, should be dramatically increased.
Mr. Speaker, it is time that this government realize the most important resource of this country is its people. Let us harness that resource to its full potential.


CONSEIL DU PATRONAT DU QUEBEC
Mr. Marcel R. Tremblay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, on October 22, the Quebec caucus met 13 members of the executive of the Cornell du patronat du Quebec, headed by Mr. Ghislain Dufour, a dynamic and effective leader.
The CPQ agreed that good government means doing what you can. For nearly two hours, we discussed some very substantial recommendations by the CPQ on federal government administration. We were very much on the same wave length, and quite often our objectives were the same, such as cutbacks and restructuring; reducing the deficit and keeping interest rates low; controlling inflation; the value of the Canadian dollar versus the American dollar, and so forth.
The CPQ is opposed to subsidizing industry but favours government assistance for research and development and export assistance as well.
On the whole, this kind of meeting the CPQ and the Quebec P.C. caucus is an excellent exercise for political leaders and an opportunity for us to emphasize progressive policies conducive to the harmonious development of Quebec businesses.
Mr. Speaker, I hope this exercise will be repeated on a more regular basis.


DAVID MILGAARD
Mr. Ian Waddell (Port Moody-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow afternoon this House will be debating my private member's motion on the David Milgaard murder case.
There is growing evidence that a grave injustice was done in convicting a young man who was 16 at the time. Just in the last few weeks there has been new evidence. There has been a report by Professor Neil Boyd of the School of Criminology at Simon Fraser University and Kim Rossmo of that same university in which new evidence is brought forward, to wit the forensic expert in the case would give different testimony today. Also a profile of a serial rapist who lived and operated near the scene fits the prime leading suspect.
I want to quote from the report which says: "There is virtually no case against David Milgaard". I challenge the Minister of Justice, who is now considering a new trial, that she overcome the bureaucratic inertia and order a new trial, and finally, that she take part in the debate tomorrow afternoon and bring her evidence before this House as I will in bringing the Boyd report before the House.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Walter Van  De Walle@St. Albert: Mr. Speaker, small businesses are big business in Canada.
The importance of small business is often overlooked. Yet in the last 10 years it has represented 97 per cent of Canadian business. Firms with less than 50 employees create four out of five new jobs in Canada. One Canadian family in seven has money invested in a small business farm or professional practice.
With the free trade agreement, new opportunities are benefiting Canadian businessmen. Our government is committed to creating an economic climate conducive to small business. The Federal Development Bank offers management and financing services. Western diversification has assisted a number of small businesses. Industry, Science and Technology Canada is providing valuable assistance to improve our international competitiveness.
Last week my constituency office organized a federal government business information seminar to provide information on and assistance with government programs. We believe small business is the key to prosperity in Canada.
October 24, 1991


SMALL BUSINESS WEEK
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, October 21 to October 25 is Small Business Week in Canada. I would like to take this opportunity to salute the efforts of small business people across Canada.
Small business is the economic lifeblood of our country and our prosperity depends heavily on small business. This is especially true in my province of Prince Edward Island where there is no heavy industries or sizeable manufacturing base.
It is the tourist operators, the farmers, the fishermen and others of the province who make our economy run. Owning and operating a small business is a tremendous education and at times it can be very difficult.
This is especially true under the economic policies of this government. High interest rates and high taxes are driving down business and forcing many business owners to close their doors.
I call on this government to finally recognize the tremendous contribution made by small business in Canada and to implement economic policies to help them grow, not fold.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, acknowledging the difficult decisions which the CBC continues to face in reconciling its strategic operations to the realities of restrained budget resources, there remains one lasting omission in its broadcasting structure to serve all Canadians.
That missing link is an English language television station for the province of New Brunswick. While serious considerations have been given over many years to fill this void, it remains a fact that New Brunswick does not have a representative place at the national broadcasting table in Canada.
This is an intolerable situation, particularly in these times when national reconciliation, when New Brunswick serves as the only working model of our nation's linguistic duality.
Our province must be provided with a direct opportunity that such a CBC TV station would serve, to fully
share and exchange the programming potential that will continue to our role in defining the national identity.
It is time for CBC to consider a new and difficult investment. I call on the leadership of the CBC to please address this matter on a constructive and current basis.


SUDDEN INFANT DEATH SYNDROME AWARENESS MONTH
[Stage Direction]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River: Mr. Speaker, the month of October has been declared SIDS or Sudden Infant Death Syndrome Awareness Month.
SIDS, which is sometimes referred to as crib death, strikes down apparently healthy babies suddenly and unexpectedly, leaving behind grieving families and a powerless medical profession.
Several families from Beaver River, including neighbours of mine, have recently lost a child to SIDS.
SIDS is now the leading single cause of death in infants under one year of age after the newborn period. While deaths from SIDS have increased, those from other causes such as accidents have decreased. This dreadful syndrome has no known cause and cannot be predicted or prevented.
The Canadian Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths will be holding its annual conference in Prince Edward Island from November 1 to 3. This year's theme will be "Working Toward a Brighter Future". This conference will gather professionals and volunteers as well as parents of young SIDS victims.
I am sure that I share the sentiments of all hon. members from this House in sending the foundation our House's wishes for a successful conference as they strive to understand, deal with and sometimes eliminate sudden infant death syndrome.

Mr. Harry Chadwick (Bramalea-Gore-Malton):: Mr. Speaker, the battle continues to rage and the people of Yugoslavia struggle to preserve what is left of their homeland. There seems to be little sign of conclusion.

For family and friends living in Canada it means they wage their own quiet battle of despair and fear. I have met with several of these people who ask me again and again to do all I can to stop the destruction of their homeland.
If as yet we cannot find it in ourselves as a government to recognize Croatia as an independent state, I urge that we continue to consider the important implications Canada's recognition could bring to this war torn country.
I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to do all she can on behalf of Canada to see that this extreme situation is brought to a swift conclusion. I will not be able to find the conviction to tell my Croatian constituents to be patient much longer.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, this government is failing to address a threat to Canadians and the world, that is ozone depletion.
A UN study just released warns that ozone damage is far worse than previously feared. A further 3 per cent reduction in the ozone layer is predicted by the year 2000 if the present rate of depletion continues. Skin cancer and crop failure will increase, according to UN scientists.
Canada's agreement to phase out chlorofluorocarbons by the year 1997 is not good enough, according to these same UN scientists. Canadian regulations have still not been introduced which will meet even this goal.
Despite continued calls by the public to have company executives held responsible for pollution and recent industry calls to have the polluter pay principle enacted to curb greenhouse gas emissions, the government has not acted.
This government must institute regulations to achieve an immediate reduction of ozone destroying CFCs and similarly lend technical and financial assistance to developing nations. Canada should also show leadership by immediately calling for an international meeting to set new goals for emission reduction.


LOUVICOURT MINING PROJECT
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, the Louvicourt mining project in Abitibi is one of the biggest discoveries in recent years, both in Canada and worldwide. It compares with Kid Creek, and in fact, Val-d'Or has not seen anything like it for the past 20 years.
AUR Resources can now start exploration of its major mining discovery in Val-d'Or-Louvicourt, which will generate 522 direct jobs and revenues totalling $2 billion. This extremely rich property is 55 per cent owned by AUR Resources of Toronto, while the remaining 45 per cent is owned by Louvem of Montreal.
Since last year, Mr. Robert Bryce, Vice President, Production, of AUR Resources, has been working in Val-d'Or. If all goes well, production should start by the end of 1993. Commercial production should be under way by 1994, and operations will be in full swing, with an output of 1.8 million tons a year, by 1997.
Many thanks to the people in the Quebec and Canadian mining industry.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, it has been brought to my attention by many of my constituents in Egmont of a new policy of Employment and Immigration Canada which is causing a great deal of hardship and controversy. It is this. It is called an insurable employment questionnaire and it has to be filled out and returned with an application for UIC benefits.
The first question on the questionnaire is: "Are you related to any of your employers by blood, marriage, including common law, or adoption?"
Immediately the question arises in the minds of the applicant that there is something wrong or evil if he or she is related to the employer.
There is a feeling of guilt or wrongdoing if such is the case. In many small communities such as those in Prince Edward Island, and especially fishing communities, this
October 24, 1991

is indeed the case. Many employers are related to their employees. It has always been the case.
Suddenly there is an implication of something illegal with an employee being related to an employer. If the applicant checks "yes" then the UI application goes to Revenue Canada for an insurability ruling which takes two to three weeks, which in turn results in a six to eight week delay in the applicant receiving UIC benefits.
The other two questions are: Do you have a controlling interest in any of the companies for which you work, and, are you involved in any business relationship with your employer.
My questions, Mr. Speaker, areas follows: Is this questionnaire discriminatory? Does it infringe on the rights of our citizens and their Charter of Rights and Freedoms and why are applicants for UI being harassed in this way?


YUGOSLAVIA
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Joining my colleague from Brampton-Malton, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call upon the world through this House to immediately intervene in Yugoslavia, to stop the bloodshed and oversee a peaceful resolution to the demands for independence being made by the various states, such as Croatia and Macedonia.
Today, Dubrovnik is being bombarded by the federal Serbian forces, destroying a 14th century city contrary to international law. Even the Nazis during the Second World War respected this law. More importantly, I call upon this House to extend immediate humanitarian aid of food and medical supplies to the Croatian people whose crops have been destroyed or disrupted by war.
This is the time for free men and women of Canada to act compassionately, decisively and immediately.


CO-OPERATIVES
Mr. George S. Rideout (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise in the House today to give special recognition to the work of the co-op movement in this
country. National Co-Op Week was held recently to recognize the importance of this movement right across the country. In a quiet way, the co-op movement has permeated virtually every aspect of our community's social and economic fabric. Working at the grass roots level it has become an important force in our development and every effort should be made to ensure that a level playing field is provided the co-op movement.
The GST is one thorn in the side of co-operatives. It puts them at a disadvantage with other competitors in the retail sector. As it stands now, for example, in retail co-ops where groceries are sold, co-op membership fees are being taxed. This is unfair. In effect, members are being taxed on zero-rated items and the costs in terms of dollars as well as competitiveness are extreme.
I call upon the Minister of Finance to deal the co-ops a fair hand. Remove this inequitable tax and allow them equal footing as their competitors.


ATLANTIC ECONOMY
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the four Atlantic premiers met yesterday in Halifax to discuss the reduction in federal transfer payments for the 1991-92 fiscal year.
The premiers recognize that under the present funding formula, the Atlantic provinces are suffering as a result of the slowdown in the economies of the richer provinces, particularly Ontario.
No one will argue with the point that these reductions will place the provinces in a difficult position. The premiers have opted to seek constructive alternatives to the present funding arrangements between Ottawa and the provinces and work toward streamlining of services and strengthening their provinces' voices in determining where and how regional development moneys are spent.
I applaud the Atlantic premiers for their positive approach to a very, very difficult problem.

Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In the 1989 Budget, the government promised there would be no increase in unemployment insurance premium rates in times of economic stress. Canada is now going through very hard times. There are over 1.5 million unemployed Canadians, and Montreal alone has more than 200,000 unemployed. In July, however, the government broke its promise when it increased UI premum rates by 24 per cent, and now it is rumoured there will be another increase of 14 per cent. Is it true the government intends to saddle Canadians with another increase in unemployment insurance premium rates next January?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is wrong in her assertion. If we were to follow her line of thinking, we would violate the legislation. The legislation clearly outlines that the unemployment insurance account must be maintained on a self-sustaining basis.
In terms of any projections of future rate increases, the hon. member I am sure is aware that the process is very clear. The commission makes recommendations with respect to any changes in UI rate premiums, and that is subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance. A rate has not been set and a recommendation has not come forward to me, so it would be premature to make any further comment.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister.
I would like to read to the minister the words of his predecessor in the 1989 budget when he said: "The government will continue to contribute to the financing of the program in difficult times when it is inappropriate to raise premiums".
Does the minister believe that we are living in difficult times right now, and if he does believe that 1.5 million Canadians are living in difficult times, will he do the
right thing and guarantee no increase in the unemployment insurance premiums?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, whenever a recommendation comes forth, all of these things will be taken into consideration.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I see it is not just the Prime Minister's own UI scheme that the government is refusing to answer questions about, it is everyone else's as well.
I would like an answer from the Minister of Finance today. He made a promise by way of his predecessor in the 1989 budget that in tough times there would be no UI premium increases. The government broke that promise in July with a 24 per cent increase and it is now contemplating to hit taxpayers with another 14 per cent indirect tax hike.
Will the Minister of Finance guarantee that he is going to give some life to the economic recovery by denying any further UI increases?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, it really is unfortunate that the hon. member does not listen to answers.
I said in the answer to her first question that the process is very clear. The commission sets the rate subject to the approval of the Minister of Finance. That recommendation has not come forward. There is no recommendation so I cannot give it any consideration. I said in my second answer to her that all of the elements of the current prevailing climate would be taken into consideration.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, for the last three years not only have some of the heads of our Crown corporations received an annual bonus on their salary of up to 25 per cent, but now we discover that their salaries have increased by over $100,000 a year.
I want to ask the government by what logic can the chief executive officer of CN receive $396,000 a year plus a bonus? By what logic did the head of Canada Post get a $105,000 salary increase and now make over $300,000 a year plus a bonus? Is it because of the number of post
October 24, 1991

Oral Questions
offices and jobs he has done away with? Why these obscene, secret salary increases?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not agree at all with the statement just made by the hon. member. I repeat, his numbers are not true. He has access to the salary ranges, which are public.
I will repeat again that managers in the Public Service or in a Crown corporation receive a compensation package made up of two parts, salary and a performance pay. I do not intend to apologize for that because this is a good way of passing judgment on their efficiency. I do not apologize for that.
I will say again that all of those who come under the Canadian government will get 0 per cent increase in salary and 0 per cent increase in bonus for this year.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the salary range of the head of Canada Post went up $170,000 in the past three years.
Not only do government appointed Crown corporation executives receive bonuses, but now we discover that all executives of Crown corporations receive bonuses, compliments of the politically appointed boards of directors.
By what logic can politically appointed boards of directors use taxpayers money to give annual bonuses? By what logic can the recently appointed hairdresser to the board of the Federal Business Development Bank be giving out annual bonuses? Why does he not give them all a perm? That is good for a year, is it not?


An hon. member:: No it isn't, George.


An hon. member:: No, it isn't, George. That's a question to curl your hair. You got a perm last year and I want to know about it.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I will need to take an increase. I cannot hardly take a perm, can I?
I am very surprised. This has come up a couple of times in the House, the rather negative statement about small business people. I have listened to the hon. member time and time again in the House and I listen to him very attentively because he can be very amusing. If I have to choose between the judgment of a small
businessman and his, I will take the small businessman any time.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. Today the Business Council on National Issues released its study by Michael Porter on Canadian competitiveness. Not surprisingly, given the source of the document, it is a study that supports many of this government's failed economic policies.
My question for the Minister for International Trade is this. What role did government officials play in helping to draft and prepare this document?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any role they played. We had discussions with Mr. Porter about a year ago now. When the contract was let, we requested Mr. Porter and his group to provide information on our competitive position using the various techniques that he has supplied in the case of a number of other countries.
As my hon. friend is aware, Mr. Porter has done studies of this kind in the case of at least a dozen other countries. We felt that would be useful. Mr. Porter has applied those techniques and out of that has come the study.
I might say to my hon. friend that he did have the guidance of a committee of experts in Canada who were advising him on certain Canadian aspects of it, but there are not any government officials on that group of experts.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have in my possession documents that were obtained through freedom of information which indicate that government officials in fact were deeply involved in defining the parameters of this study, in developing a communications strategy in co-operation with BCNI, indicating that senior officials discussed with Porter and with BCNI the themes of the final conclusions of this report.
I want to ask the minister: Why did the government provide $400,000 to its friends in corporate Canada to prepare this report? Why did it try to circumvent the direct role that an independent study should play? Why did it instead attempt to persuade Canadians that this

October 24, 1991
Oral Questions
was a study which came from other than the government when the government was involved up to its neck?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I did indicate to the hon. member that we did set some parameters for the study as part of the ground rules that we set any time we provide public funding for a study. We say: "Here is what we want you to review".
Mr. Porter is an author of 12 books, 45 articles, an internationally recognized expert on competitiveness and provides advice to a range of major corporations around the world. If he is suggesting that Mr. Porter is going to make changes to his report based on requests from government officials, then I think he is selling short the quality of the man we have asked to do this work. I think the description that I have here of what Mr. Porter has done in advising on competitiveness would support the position that I have taken.
As I have said, we provide some parameters for him, as we would do in any case, but then it is up to Mr. Porter to write the review.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, let me just quote briefly from several of these documents, first from proposed clauses between the federal government and BCNI Communications, "BCNI and the government are to jointly develop an over-all communications plan"; second, from a memorandum from the Business Council on National Issues to the government advisory board, "preliminary discussion of the themes of the final chapter of the document which will address implications of the study findings for business and government".
I ask the government why it is trying to cover up the fact that it has been a major author of what is in fact a defence of government policies rather than an independent study.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to use language that is not appropriate to this House to describe the questions and the allegations that my hon. friend has just made.
Certainly we are going to sit down with Mr. Porter and make sure that the areas we want him to cover in a report are covered so that we can make sure that the $400,000, in this case, will be properly spent.
I would also say to my hon. friend that we have had similar types of discussions with the Canadian Labour Congress on a study that it wishes to do on the competitive position of the Canadian economy. We will apply the same ground rules with them. We will sit down with them and discuss what the parameters of any study will be and we will sit down with them from time to time to make sure that the work as it continues follows the guidelines and the rules set out by us in establishing that there is an appropriate use of government funds.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of the Environment. Canada is already committed to eliminating all CFCs by 1997. On Tuesday, a UN report concluded that current reduction measures are inadequate. The ozone layer is deteriorating twice as fast as expected.
Will the government follow the example of other countries like Germany and Norway? Will it make a commitment today to eliminate all CFCs by 1995, at the latest?


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to discuss this issue because Canada is a real leader in CFC reduction, as it was stated in the Montreal Protocol of 1988.
CFCs in our own schedule are to be reduced by 1997. But I would like to remind the hon. member that a very substantial commitment has been made by the green plan concerning the CFC reductions and the improving of the regulations.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: That kind of reply is simply inappropriate. The United Nations has just said that the basis for those commitments is entirely inappropriate, that the situation is twice as bad as we thought it was.
October 24, 1991

My question for the minister is this. Will the government call for an immediate emergency meeting of the world body that is dealing with the ozone layer? Will the government call for a meeting that will deal not only with CFCs but one that will, as well, call for an urgent end to all other ozone depleting chemicals? Canada has a leadership position. Take it.


Pauline Browes: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada and Environment Canada have taken a real leadership role in this issue and the hon. member knows that. I want to remind him that we will be sitting down with other countries in order to review that. Our position is very clear and very strong.


CANADA POST
Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora -Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour. In today's Ottawa Citizen Canada Post vice-president Harold Dunstan is quoted as saying: "Yesterday we thought we had an agreement. The union thought we had an agreement and Justice Gold thought we had an agreement. So there must be an agreement there".
It was also yesterday that Justice Alan Gold resigned as the government appointed mediator in this dispute.
Will the minister explain to this House why Justice Gold resigned when it appeared to both sides and to Justice Gold that an agreement was imminent?


Marcel Danis: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all members of the House would with me like to thank Justice Gold for the excellent work that he did-


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Danis: -and for the excellent work that he has done for this country for a number of years as Chief Justice of the Quebec Superior Court.
The contract agreement ended on July 31, 1989. At that time the government appointed a conciliation commission which went on for approximately 10 months. There were over 70 meetings. At that time also there were over 300 issues that were not solved.
When we got the report I then appointed Justice Gold. At that time there were 22 items that had not been
Oral Questions
solved and I now understand they are down to very few. A lot of progress has been made by both sides, but it was Justice Gold's judgment that an agreement could not be reached. That is why he withdrew.
Second to my boss, the Prime Minister, Justice Gold is the best mediator we have in this country.


Robert Daniel Nault: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the minister responsible for Canada Post.
I met with union officials this morning and they tell me the statements made by Mr. Dunstan in today's Ottawa Citizen are accurate so I do not buy the argument by the Minister of Labour. Furthermore, Justice Gold is also quoted in that same article as saying: "What I learned during the process I will take with me to the grave".
Will the minister acknowledge that the real reason behind Justice Gold's decision to resign is that he was pressured by this government and by the minister? Will the minister please give us the real story?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, anybody who knows Justice Gold, even by reputation, knows that is an impossibility.
The reality is that on a number of occasions all parties thought they were very close only to go back to the table to find they had spread apart and subsequently they came close together.
There is still an opportunity to reach a settlement at the table. I hope they will do so. Justice Gold gave it his best shot. He thought there was no more useful purpose to be served by him staying there.
As I say, they can still reach an agreement. They met yesterday afternoon. They do not have plans to meet again, but they can meet at any time and if there is goodwill on both sides they can reach that agreement. I hope they do that because I do not think the people of Canada need to again endure the disruption and cost of another postal strike. That would be the most irresponsible thing that could happen.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs.

Oral Questions
As the minister knows, the Yugoslav army has been ruthlessly shelling the historic city of Dubrovnik, wreaking devastation, injury and death, including an attack on the city hospital.
I want to ask the minister if the government will now condemn in the strongest possible terms this outrageous attack, provide desperately needed humanitarian aid directly to the people of Croatia and make sure that it gets through to the people of Croatia, impose with the European Community strong sanctions, and finally insist upon the immediate withdrawal of the army from Croatia so that the will of the Croatian people for independence can finally be recognized.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we propose to do. We are going to be raising the question of the Dubrovnik damage at the UNESCO conference in Paris today or tomorrow. We will be condemning, in the strongest possible terms, this senseless destruction.
The Prime Minister has taken the initiative to put this issue before the Security Council of the United Nations. We are working with our friends in the European Community to ensure that we get the broadest possible front, whether it is sanctions, peacekeeping or international condemnation, of what is happening in Yugoslavia today.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. The minister has still not indicated when the Canadian government is going to show leadership on the issue of sanctions. I think that is what Canadians want to hear.
My supplementary relates to another area in which there has been enormous personal tragedy and violence, Nagorno Karabakh.
In view of the history of deportations, shooting and detention of Armenians and the closing of the airport at Stephanakert, will the Canadian government support an international UN peacekeeping force in Karabakh and will we provide urgently needed humanitarian aid directly to the people of Nagorno Karabakh?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, these are all matters we are discussing with partners in the European Community and other countries who have like-minded objectives in this regard. We are doing everything we can possibly do on an internationally co-operative basis to cause many ceasefires to be held to so that we can see an end to this senseless destruction.


Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians did not need the long overdue million dollar Porter study to realize that we are in trouble, that our competitiveness is falling, that unemployment is a major problem, that we are pitifully weak in science and technology, research and development and that training is wholly inadequate.
Will the industry minister tell us just what it is that he learned from the Porter study that Canadians and his own industry officials did not already know?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there have been, as my hon. friend is aware, a number of studies. There is not a clear consensus or a clear understanding as to what should be done. It is precisely for that reason that we asked Mr. Porter and his group of experts to review Canada, taking into account the international experience they have gained over the years in studying similar situations in over a dozen countries.
We are going to be launching, as my friend is well aware, a broad consultation within Canada so that we can pull together all of this work in a way that generates a national consensus. Out of this we can have a national action plan that will get the full power of the nation, not one level of government, not two levels of government, not the private sector, but everybody pulling together behind this national problem and improving our competitiveness.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Mr. Speaker, while this government dabbles, the clock is ticking away on Canada's economic future. We need action. We do not need more studies.


An hon. member:: That is right.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Even Mr. Porter recognized that, and I quote: "Labour should be treated as a partner, not as an adversary". How can Canada be competitive when it is this government's policy and agenda to beat labour into submission? What steps will this government announce
October 24, 1991

today to ensure that labour becomes a full partner in Canada's economic renewal?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my friend and the member for Windsor have both been critical of government policy.
Today we have interest rates below 8 per cent. The Treasury bill rate is below 8 per cent for the first time in close to 10 or 12 years.


An hon. member:: It is 13 years.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In 13 years. So we have seen the results of the policies we have been following translated into real action in the marketplace that are bringing down interest rates and through that reduction in interest rates, generating the economic recovery that my friend is asking for.
My hon. friend says he wants action. There is the action. There is the performance that is going to bring about the economic recovery that we need in the country.
As regards labour and the role of labour, I think my hon. friend is quite well aware through reading the newspapers that, far from doing what he suggests we had done in his stupid preamble, we have been working with the Canadian Labour Congress to see that it is part of the consultations that we will be launching next week.
For its reasons, it has decided not to. I am sorry that that is the case, but I am sure that through other means and representations, through other involvements, the voice of labour will be heard in a strong way in these consultations.


TRAINING
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, the Porter report on Canada's competitiveness is just the latest in a long line of reports that tells this government that Canada needs to seriously commit itself to training.
Before this report, we had reports from the Conference Board, the Economic Council and the DeGrandpre commission. I would like to ask the government how many reports it is going to wait for and how quickly are
Oral Questions
we going to get action on this extremely important issue to global competitiveness, namely national training.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the way the hon. member asks the question suggests that we have not done anything on training.
We started from a point of about zero government funds being spent on training when we took over the government from the Liberal Party in 1984. We have moved that to a point where this year there will be some $2.2 billion in federal government funding for training programs.
What my hon. friend misses is that governments alone cannot solve this problem. There are reports that show that the private sector in Canada is spending .03 per cent of our national income on training programs.
To put this into context, company training programs in the United States are double that. It is .6 per cent. In Japan, it is 1.2 per cent and in Germany, it is 2.4 per cent. What we have to do in this broad national consultation is impress upon the private sector management and labour alike that it is extremely important for the private sector to do its job in generating a greater degree of spending and commitment to training programs so that we can deal with the challenges that we are facing in an internationally globally competitive economy.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: Mr. Speaker, quite frankly, what this nation needs is not more and more consultation. What this nation needs is action on the issue of training.
The minister's response inadvertently draws attention to his government's incompetence on this issue. Reports today indicate that the Canadian Labour Force Development Board has recommended an additional $400 million be spent on training. Half of that would go just to compensate for the cuts this government has made in the last two years.
I ask the minister: When is this government going to understand that if Canada is to compete globally, this government has to do more, not less, in the area of training.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member cannot talk out of both

October 24, 1991
Oral Questions
sides of his mouth because we have demonstrated action in going from zero to $2.25 billion.
Part of those moneys was on legislation that was delayed by the Liberal Party of Canada for a full year. If the hon. member is criticizing the government for not spending more on training, it is only in the mirror that he should be looking to see why the delays occurred.


SOCIAL PROGRAMS
Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister for International Trade.
Last week in Chicago, the minister said: "No man, no woman, no child goes without adequate medical care, decent shelter or proper food in Canada.
The minister surely knows that over 2 million Canadians live on welfare. Over 1 million Canadian children go to bed hungry at night and over 100,000 Canadians are homeless. In light of all this evidence of hunger and homelessness in Canada, why did the minister make such an erroneous statement to his American audience?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member should look at the context of that comment. I was making it in the context of a statement whereby the United Nations has stated that Canada is the second best place in the world to live, that we have the second highest level of measurement in a range of things including health care, the environment, and other things related to welfare.
We have in this country one of the best welfare programs in the world today. We have one of the best unemployment insurance programs in the world today.
The hon. member, in standing up and making the statements that he has just made, is casting doubts on what is widely regarded in other countries as the one of the best combinations of programs to support people in poverty, in hunger and who are in need of health care.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance.
One year ago in this House, October 26, in response to reports that there was a large projected deficit in the unemployment insurance account, the then Minister of Finance referred to the fact that there were fixed rates for UI premium rates for three years and said that: "If there is any shortfall then this will be made up by the government".
One year later we have another indication that there will be a shortfall. Will the government keep its promise that it did not keep last year when it increased UI premium rates by 24 per cent, and ensure that any shortfall will be picked up by the federal government as it promised? You promised it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I answered that question in the House on two different occasions.
The hon. member is speculating on a premium rate change. All I can say to him is that the process is very clear. The UI Commission makes a recommendation for any rate increase or the maintenance of the status quo as a recommendation to the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Finance has to approve it. That recommendation has not been forthcoming. The rate has not been set and, therefore, I cannot comment on the hon. member's question until such time as the recommendation is brought forward.


FISHERIES
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Employment and Immigration). The Cooperative des pecheurs commerciaux du Lac-Saint-Pierre applied for a $200,000 grant under the community investment fund program. After spending two years preparing their case, which meets all the program's criteria, Quebec head office unanimously recommended-I have the document right here-that the department approve the grant. I may remind the minister that this was a request for start-up funds, not a job-creation program. Could the minister perhaps explain why she used her discretion in such a partisan way and refused to approve this grant, thus

endangering the survival of freshwater fishing in Quebec?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I am amazed the hon. member opposite should direct inquiries about the state of his riding business to a federal minister.
I am acquainted with the case. The hon. member and I discussed it several times in the lobby of this House. I even met the sponsors of this project to try and find a way out of the administrative impasse that had developed.
At that meeting I made a counter-proposal that was rejected out of hand. I felt that, as a minister, my responsibility included job creation, and that is why I made this proposal. The reasons why your request was rejected were mentioned in a letter I sent to the Quebec Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with reference to an announcement made in my riding on May 24, this year. I think we could continue this discussion outside this House.


Louis Plamondon: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised at the minister's response. The minister said it was for administrative reasons, but there are no administrative reasons. The recommendation made by her own departments to her office was unanimous.
The minister indicated there was no partisanship involved. I have here a letter signed by the mayor of Becancourt, the president of the Community Futures Centre, the director of the credit union, by five people who met the minister and who said the minister told them she turned down the request because the member for Richelieu was a member of the opposition. Is the minister prepared to sign the recommendation made by her senior officials and save the fisheries in Quebec, and thus shed the negative image this has created for the department and the program?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member hides behind our senior officials and airs publicly the results of negotiations conducted as part of an approval process. I am the minister responsible for implementing our job creation programs. I entered politics in 1984 to help our co-operatives and communities, and I resent being taken to task and scolded for being partisan because I made an
Oral Questions
administrative counter-proposal to break the administrative impasse in this particular case.


CANADA AT THE CROSSROADS
Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, this morning Professor Porter's major study on competitiveness called "Canada at the Crossroads" was unveiled. My question is about the report and it is directed to the Minister for International Trade.
At its heart the report says that for Canada to be competitive, we must have co-ordinated economic policies between Ottawa and the provinces, have free trade within Canada and balanced budgets at all levels of government. I would like to know if the minister agrees with those goals and if he thinks they are realistic and can be achieved.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, first of all I do agree with these specific thoughts that are in the Porter report. I would also make the point that what is needed here is not a period of partisan game playing as we saw in the House today, but a recognition that there are some very serious problems that we are facing in training programs, in the development of more research and development, in dealing with the problems of a common market within the country and how we improve our activities internationally.
We would welcome the active participation of members opposite as I know we will get from members on this side of the House in dealing with what is a national problem of challenging our private sector and governments to deal-


Mr. Speaker:: I think we will have to move on. The hon. member for Halifax.


ATLANTIC ECONOMY
Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency released its report "The State of Small Business and Entrepreneurship in Atlantic Canada" at a cost of $80,000. At the same time the unemployment figures in Nova Scotia are at 11.6 per cent and also

Oral Questions
in Nova Scotia bankruptcies are at the highest level in the entire country.
Will the Minister of Finance tell us what specific programs that he is putting in place to combat what is effectively the economic collapse in Atlantic Canada?


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member opposite, there are many programs that are already in place that are worked in conjunction with the Atlantic provinces. ACOA is only one of the programs which is administered mainly by the federal government. There are always ongoing talks with the premiers in Atlantic Canada for ways and means of improving the situation in their economy.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his answer but I again place a question to the Minister of Finance in the absence of the Minister responsible for ACOA.
Will the minister finally agree with the Atlantic provinces premiers and set up a committee that will look at the mandate, the funding and the effectiveness of ACOA as a regional development agency?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, we will look at any positive suggestions to improve the economic fortunes in Atlantic Canada. I think the best thing that we can say today is that interest rates continue to decline because we have brought inflation down to a tolerable level. As the Minister for International Trade pointed out, for the first time in probably 13 years the Treasury bill rate has dropped below 8 per cent. The bank rate is 8.17 as of today. That is a 13 basis points decline today.
I think that is heading in the right direction.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Peter L. McCreath (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Immigration. According to today's Ottawa Citizen the Liberal immigration critic has proposed incarcerating refugee claimants while they await processing. This proposal has been described by the counsel for the Canadian Council of
Churches as "sounding like the refugee concentration camps in Hong Kong".
He also calls it a stupid idea. Can the minister advise the House whether such an idea is the policy of this government and whether it ever will be for electoral or any other purposes?


Monique Vézina: No,
Mr. Speaker, this government never intended to set up a camp for refugee claimants, whether it is called "Welcome to Canada" or anything else. What we have done is to set up an administrative and judicial refugee determination process that is recognized as a model nationally and internationally. This system treats men and women equally, helps legitimate claimants and firmly sends back those who are not.


YOUTH PROGRAMS
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister for youth.
With this latest government initiative against school dropouts why has the minister not announced comprehensive evaluation plans to be able to determine what kind of success this particular initiative might have?
How will Canadians know whether or not our young people will be able to get better jobs as a result of this particular program? When will the minister be able to tell this House and Canadians what he expects to do in this area?
Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Minister of State (Youth) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member has answered the question of what we expect to do in this area. We have a program in place that is being implemented across the land. I am told it is very successful, and as soon as I have some concrete numbers I will be very pleased to share them with the House.
October 24, 1991


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Secretary of State. About five million Canadians are functionally illiterate, and the federal government has decided to try to help them. Can the minister responsible for this program say how many people who were functionally illiterate can now find jobs in Canada as a result of this involvement?


Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux (Minister of State (Youth), Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, since this is a very specific question which should perhaps have been put on the Order Paper and since my colleague, the Secretary of State, is unfortunately not here today, I take note of the question and am sure that my colleague will answer him as soon as possible.


NUCLEAR INDUSTRY
Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Last June the former Secretary of State for External Affairs assured us that the atmospheric releases of radioactive contaminants from the Hanford nuclear waste facility south of the B.C.-Washington border posed no negative impact to Canada.
Today we find out that Canada's Atomic Energy Board actively discouraged the federal government from questioning U.S. officials about such radiation leaks for fear of reciprocal scrutiny of Canadian operations.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he will come clean and admit that the Atomic Energy Control Board has failed in its role as Canada's nuclear-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member can put his question without the suggestion that there is some sort of wrongdoing on the part of the minister.
Business of the House


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer the question because it gives me an opportunity to put the facts on the record.
Mr. Norm Rubin is stated as saying that he was not able to get the letter. I have the letter here. He had a copy of it and I would be willing not only to table it but I would also like to be able to table the results.
In the results the point is this: the levels are being set internationally. We then set them even below that for Canadian standards and then below that. It was at 2 per cent of those levels.
We want to be in favour of the environment. We want to be in favour of the veracity of regulatory agencies. We want truth here. I expect it from members opposite too.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the deputy House leader concerning the business for tomorrow and the remaining parts of next week.
While the minister is on his feet, I wonder if he could indicate to the House whether or not the Minister of Labour who is in the Chamber will be making a statement tomorrow under ministerial statements explaining to the House what has transpired or not transpired with regard to the postal dispute that has resulted in the mediator resigning.


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to introduce an act tomorrow to provide for the continuation of postal services. We hope that after discussions among the usual channels we can call it for debate at second reading on that day and possibly complete debate at all stages later on the same day. If not, then it is our intention to call Bill C-35, respecting the Miscellaneous Act, for completion at second reading and government Motion No. 5 on decorum in the House for completion.
For Monday and Tuesday, depending on the discussions with regard to the postal service bill, we will then decide what business will be called.

October 24, 1991
Supply


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, that comes as somewhat of a surprise in view of the discussions that transpired among the House leaders of the respective parties. We thought that we would be proceeding on Friday as agreed with the conflict of interest motion that the government was going to put before the House.
Can the minister indicate whether or not the Minister of Labour will be responding to a specific question that I have raised with regard to a ministerial statement tomorrow about the post office?


Pierre H. Cadieux: It is my understanding that the Minister of Labour will be speaking with his critics this afternoon. I am sure that when the legislation is tabled, if it is tabled tomorrow and if debate occurs, the minister will be speaking in the debate.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I know that the deputy House leader does not wish me to get into the realm of the hypothetical, but this is a deviation from what we had agreed to earlier in the week.
Consent will have to be given by the House in order to proceed with the postal legislation. If we assume for a moment that it is not available, would the Minister of Labour indicate to the House if it is his intention, in view of what has transpired, under ministerial statements to give a comprehensive statement to Parliament as to what has occurred in terms of the breakdown and/or resignation of the mediator who the government appointed in the Canada Post dispute? Would the Minister of Labour or the deputy House leader be candid enough to give us that kind of information?


Pierre H. Cadieux: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. colleague that we should not work on hypothesis. I indicated in my answer that before the bill is tabled tomorrow there will be discussions through the usual channels. The Minister of Labour will be speaking with his critics and decisions will be made at that time. Depending on those decisions there will be acts that will follow. If need be, the Minister of Labour, as I have indicated, will be speaking in the House and I am sure that as Minister of Labour introducing that legislation he will be speaking.
If the Minister of Labour, after discussion with his critics, determines that he should do something else he will make that decision at that time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Baker (p. 3918).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When the debate was suspended at one o'clock, the Official Opposition had the floor and had agreed to divide its time into 10-minute periods each. I recognize the hon. member for Halifax; she has the floor for 10 minutes.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to participate in this debate but I am very sorry that there is a need for it at this time.
When we recessed for the lunch hour, I had been sitting in this House listening with great interest to the remarks made by my colleague, the member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury, who is of course a member of the government party. It is very interesting because the member for Fredericton-York-Sunbury and I have constituencies that have a great deal in common. They are both capital cities of small maritime provinces. They both have university constituents. I have five universities either within or very close to my riding. They both have several hospitals, although since Halifax is the larger centre it is the regional health authority and the regional health centre for Atlantic Canada. There are a lot of similarities between Halifax and Fredericton.
I have to say I was disappointed in the remarks of the hon. member, but I am disappointed on an almost daily basis because of the remarks of many members and ministers on the government side with regard to what is happening in Atlantic Canada.
In the city of Halifax we are very fortunate to be a centre of higher education and learning. We have universities that are second to none such as Dalhousie University with its superb professional faculties. Indeed in this House sit many graduates of that university such as the member for Kingston and the Islands. There are other members who almost graduated from that institu-
October 24, 1991

tion. and did not quite make it, but in the interest of decorum we will not get into that.


Beryl Gaffney: Read the book.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Absolutely. The member for Nepean says: "Read the book". I could not agree more.
However, in all seriousness, Dalhousie University, St. Mary's University, the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, the Technical University of Nova Scotia, the University of King's College, Mount St. Vincent University, the Atlantic School of Theology are all institutions of higher learning. But as I said in Question Period yesterday, their students, faculty and boards are bleeding from a thousand wounds.
The situation is no different at the University of New Brunswick or at St. Thomas University on the same campus. It is no different at UPEI as my colleague, the hon. member for Egmont, is reminding me. It is no different at the College of Cape Breton. It is no different at Memorial University. It is no different at the University of Moncton. In other words, it is no different in any of the Atlantic Canadian universities. We have the highest tuitions. We have the lowest pay for our faculty and staff. We have the oldest physical plants.
Let me tell the House about the age of some of the physical plants. Dalhousie University was Nova Scotia's centennial project, so the province has given a great deal to this university over the years that it cannot well afford. It is possible to be injured fairly severely if you walk around certain parts of one building because pieces of concrete will fall off and, if you are not careful, you will get hit by them. There are now signs around saying "stay away from this particular side of the building" because there is no money to fix it. There are also antiquated heating systems.
Last week I attended a rally of at least hundreds of students. The student union building at Dalhousie was jammed to all its doors with interested young people on the issue of their problems in the university today. One young woman stood and told us that she attends a class that should be for 15 people but there are 40 people in the class. This is really a small problem in the grand scheme of things because there are other classes that are supposed to have 20 and have 200, but the particular problem that she raised was not even the fact that 40 people are too many in a class that is suppose to have 15. The problem she raised was that the room where those young people, our children, are studying is set up for 15 people and there are 40 people in that room. If there was a fire or other problem in these ageing buildings that are under-maintained because the university has no money,
Supply
what would happen to those 40 young people crowded into a space for 15?
These are the kind of realities that Atlantic Canadian universities are facing. Yet Friday this government cut upward of $170 million from Established Programs Financing.
Yesterday in Question Period, today in Question Period, every day the members from Atlantic Canada on the opposition side are on their feet talking about the needs of our constituents. We are getting a little tired of our needs, our constituents' needs, our province's needs, our region's needs falling on deaf ears.


An hon. member:: And we are tired of listening to you.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Well, no doubt you are. If that gentleman interrupts me again, Mr. Speaker, I would like to call on the hon. House leader of the government to come in and protect me from indecorous acts and interruptions.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Thank you.


An hon. member:: Get Harvie back.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Yes, I want to know where he is when I need him.
After that dreadful attack, Mr. Speaker-I would think that the hon. gentleman might be able to do better.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Mary Catherine Clancy: They are interrupting again. I do not know what I am going to do. I will just have to go and cry somewhere.


An hon. member:: With Harvie.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Oh, heaven forbid!


An hon. member:: He is in there weeping.

October 24, 1991
Supply


Mary Catherine Clancy: The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands makes certain suggestions that are absolutely untenable.
Mr. Speaker, to get back to the serious issue at hand, the people of Atlantic Canada are very tired of coming hat in hand to the federal government. The people of Atlantic Canada are asking this government to give them the kinds of programs that create the atmosphere where they can compete.
This government is forever talking about competitiveness and when it talks about competitiveness it is putting muzzles on our universities. It is cutting our universities in two. It is decimating our universities and creating situations where our students cannot learn, where our faculties cannot do research and development, and where once great traditions are suffering because the climate is not there to allow them to do what they do best, which is to teach, to research, and to develop.
That is a crime.
I would like to touch very briefly on the second issue-


Ross Belsher: The Liberals spend more money.


Mary Catherine Clancy: The hon. parliamentary secretary tells me to spend more money, that is what the Liberals want to do. Actually, Mr. Parliamentary Secretary, through you Mr. Speaker, it is not such a bad idea. You have to spend some money to make some money. You have to be prepared to foster research and development if you want to have a country that is competitive and on the cutting edge. It may well be that the tight-fisted parliamentary secretary cannot see that point but perhaps he could come to some of our seminars some time and we could explain it to him.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, beyond that I do want to touch on the other area that is so important, not just to Atlantic Canada but to the country as a whole, but which in Atlantic Canada is part of the Established Programs Financing and that is health care.
My city of Halifax is the centre for most of the critical care in Atlantic Canada. We have the hospitals. We have the support programs, the rehabilitation centre, all sorts of different institutions that are involved in the care of Atlantic Canadians. Patients come from New Brunswick,
Newfoundland, P.E.I., from all over Nova Scotia for treatment.
Beds are closed in our hospitals. Patients are waiting for elective surgery that if they have to wait too long can stop being elective and become crucial.
The general health of Atlantic Canadians is suffering because of the cutbacks of this government in Established Programs Financing. It is suffering because the Victoria General Hospital has to close beds. The Halifax Infirmary has to close beds. Kentville Hospital has to close beds, and on and on across the region.
Atlantic Canadians are not second-class Canadians. They are first-class Canadians. They have shown themselves to be first-class Canadians. They have first-class universities and they have first-class hospital facilities. Unfortunately, what they are getting is a second-class federal government with second-class ideas about funding.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me, as always, to hear the hon. member for Halifax make a speech in this House, and I wish to ask her some questions on what she said.
The member indicated that we have been asking questions of ministers about this very large cut. I believe she mentioned the figure of $178 million in cuts and grants to Atlantic Canada. Yet every day when these questions are asked in Question Period we get this same drivel from the government. I must say it must sound very difficult to understand to people who tune in and here that because the answer we are given is: "Well, since 1984, payments to Atlantic Canada have gone up by x dollars" and the ministers harp and carp about this huge increase we have had since 1984.
We know there has been a cut of $178 million. Could the member explain in simple terms, so that even I could understand, how it is that there has been this cut, yet we are told there has been this increase? What is going on. What kind of subterfuge is the government using to conceal the facts from Canadians in its answers?
Mr. Speaker, it is a shame. [Translation]


October 24, 1991


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands.

That is a very good question that my hon. colleague has asked. The answer is quite simple. There is a rate at which Established Programs Financing is given to the provinces that receive it. The rate accelerates each year under a certain formula. This government has decided to freeze the rate. So while there is a dollar increase, there is an over-all cut because of all of the costs increasing.
For example, I did not even get close to discussing some of the problems faced by universities relating to the GST on a lot of purchasing they have to make, particularly in the area of library books and things of this nature. The fact that the rate is frozen, and is frozen until 1994-95, means that they are not keeping ahead of the game.
A very good example with regard to universities is the question of books.
When I was a first year law student at Dalhousie University in 1971, and the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands will remember this because he was there just a year before that- Yes, we were both very young going to law school.
The member will remember that there is a torts textbook that is used by all first year law students, called Wright and Linden, standard in all common law schools in the country. I was fortunate, I bought my text from my aunt who actually was a classmate of the member for Kingston and the Islands. I did not buy it, she gave it to me. Families are like that.


Ross Belsher: I did not know he was that old.


Mary Catherine Clancy: No, he is not as old as my aunt. If she hears me say that she will be upset.
However, to get the point here, my textbook was given to me so I was very lucky. I was lucky that I had a member of my family who had been there just before me. The cost of that textbook in 1971, brand new, was somewhere in the vicinity of $20 to $22. It is an absolute. You must have it. Also, the editions change as the law changes. As we sit here and pass legislation, a lot of laws change and the jurisprudence reacting to our legislation, et cetera.
Supply
My former legislative assistant is now a first year law student at Dalhousie. He was showing me his books which cost him in excess of $750, not counting GST and Wright and Linden, now in paperback by the way, not hard cover, was in excess of $80.


An hon. member:: Plus GST.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Plus GST. Yes. That is what the student has to pay, but so does the university. The university must buy these books.
Stephen Leacock said years ago when writing about a Canadian university that all you needed for a university was a few people, a few chairs and a few books. Well, we have progressed passed that in the sense of the way our universities work today. Mr. Leacock was rightly talking in a sense of the philosophy of education.
We in this country know that education is more than philosophy, it is training. Even if it is only a few books, as Mr. Leacock suggested, we are taking away the money from the universities for those books.


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that others have said the same thing, but it is not really a pleasure to rise and debate this particular issue because of the hardship that has been caused to Atlantic Canadians as a result of the government's high-handed practice in the area of transfer payments.
This is just one aspect of a continuing story of how the government is setting up an arrangement where it is going to have a patchwork Confederation. The equality which was enshrined in our Constitution is going to be lost because the government does not have either the financial desire, wherewithal or whatever reason to make sure that there is equality. It may have the wherewithal, but it does not really have the total desire to hold this country together and have the proper sharing between the rich and the poor.
In New Brunswick, we are going to lose about $110 million in transfer payments. Our province will have to find that $110 million somewhere or cut back on service as the alternative. That, quite frankly, is unacceptable because those areas that are going to be adversely affected are obviously the areas of education and health care in particular. Those two areas are the ones that should be least affected by any change in transfer payments.

Supply
When we look at this problem, it is hard not to be a little embarrassed, coming from Atlantic Canada and sounding like the poor cousin who is always asking for a handout or the dole so to speak. I find it kind of reprehensible that I have to stand up here and say that there should be equalization among provinces and that Atlantic Canadians are hard done by and therefore need more money. That is the reality of the situation.
If we are going to provide proper medicare and proper educational services, if we are going to provide the basic needs of Canadians including Atlantic Canadians, then transfer payments are necessary and this is what we are going to need.
This formula does not work because those Atlantic Canada provinces that are pulling themselves up by their bootstraps are starting to accomplish something, are finding themselves penalized by their success. New Brunswick has been doing reasonably well in these tough economic times. Through the good leadership of a Liberal government in New Brunswick, success is being achieved to a degree.
It is now going to be penalized by that success. Because it is doing so well, it is going to have a larger cut than any other Atlantic province. I believe the numbers are around $110 million for New Brunswick and about $17 million for P.E.I. and $18 million for Newfoundland, or something like that. Nova Scotia is going to get a little increase.
The province that is going to bear the brunt is quite frankly and quite candidly the province which has had the most success. That is another inequity in this situation. What you are doing is taking that success and eventually turning it into failure.
If these moneys were invested properly, which is what New Brunswick has done in the past, then we would see an improved educational system, an improved higher educational system. You would see a health care system that responds to the needs, an efficient health care system.
Instead, what we are going to have to see are cuts and more cuts. This will have the effect of taking something away from the system rather than making it work.
I would like to quote from Premier McKenna who is now talking quite justifiably about a new transfer formula because this One obviously is not working. "The
formula reduces transfers to provinces whose economies are improving. When that combines with the recession hitting Canada's wealthiest province, the result is a massive reduction in payments."
"What we have seen this year should never be repeated. We are a victim of New Brunswick's economic success and Ontario's economic failure. The combined effect has given us an absolutely shocking decrease in equalization. The current system is flawed by being attached to the economy of Ontario."
"When Ontario's economy does as well as it was until the recession struck early last year, the rest of the country follows on its coat tails. When Ontario's economy falters and the have not provinces need assistance, the formula should reward them. But it doesn't. The system is also designed to help provinces whose economies are floundering, but in doing so punishes those governments who tiy to improve their situation". McKenna said he wants to see a new formula negotiated, possibly as a part of future constitutional talks which would encourage poorer provinces to prudently manage their money, keeping deficits low and encourage investment.
I think that is the nub of the point. What happens is that the provinces who have not been successful, the provinces who have not managed their finances properly, are rewarded in these circumstances and the provinces who have done a good job, who have kept an even keel, have bit bullet, so to speak and gone through the trauma of wage freezes, cutbacks and reorganizations in trying to accord a proper balance in the system and at the same time trying to encourage economic development, are penalized.
I think the premier is right when he says that we are going to have to look at this from a constitutional basis. As I read our Constitution as it presently exists there appears to be a constitutional requirement of equality. By this formula that equality is lost. All you have to do is visit any of the hospitals in Atlantic Canada, talk to the people who are managing those hospitals and realize the sheer impact of what is going on.
In my own community of Moncton, we have wards in the hospital that have to be closed, so they are not there to provide the necessary health care service. We have elective surgery being deferred for six, eight and nine
October 24, 1991

months because we do not have the resources to provide the service in the area of health care.
That is a very serious problem for our province. That is why there is a national responsibility to assist New Brunswick and to encourage it. If New Brunswick is given that type of encouragement and that financial support, one day we will be contributing to Ontario's poor economy and we will have transfers coming from New Brunswick to Ontario. That is what we are aiming to do so that we in turn, as we helped out the west during the depression in the thirties, will be able to help Ontario through its tough economic times. We can do that by making New Brunswick and Atlantic Canada strong.
This does just the opposite. This puts Atlantic Canada further behind. It is going to be less able to be a full partner in this Confederation. That is why we have an obligation in this House to see that that does not happen. That is why we need this government to recognize that the formula is wrong, that the formula does not work, it penalizes success and it rewards those who are unsuccessful, all of which in my view, and I am sure in the view of many members opposite, is simply wrong.
As we proceed through this debate and look at what is going on in our country and as we talk about a new federation or confederation, I think that this is going to have to be one aspect discussed, that we try to find a different formula, a different system. We have to do something in the area of education because that is going to be the one main vehicle that is going to allow Atlantic Canadians to be full partners in this Confederation, that is going to be the saviour in my view of all of Atlantic Canadians. It is going to allow Atlantic Canadians to stay in Atlantic Canada rather than having to emigrate to Ontario, Quebec or out west because there are not the jobs and not the fulfilment that one would expect.
I know that my time is running short, Mr. Speaker. Let me say this. It is not a proud moment to be standing here cap in hand saying we need to receive some money from those who are richer and who are better off than we are. The reality is that this is an investment, not an expenditure. It is an investment in Atlantic Canadians. In the long run, it will pay a dividend to all of Canada.
Supply


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the hon. member opposite a question concerning the motion before us. It states:
That this House condemn the government for reducing the level
of transfer payments to the Atlantic provinces-
What action has this government taken that is doing something to Atlantic Canada that it has not done to every other province in this country?


George Saunders Rideout: Mr. Speaker, I guess my first initial response would be one of saying that because harm has been done equally does not make it right. At a time when we have a government led recession and a government led poor economic circumstance, it is time when the federal government has to help those provinces that are least able to help themselves, and in this case it is Atlantic Canada.
If a formula which has worked over a number of years acceptably and things are okay with it, in trying economic times and in very difficult and unusual circumstances it does have a negative effect, then I think it is incumbent upon the government to step in to remedy that situation and to do something in order to correct the problem so that the adverse effects of a patchwork Confederation of poor education, poor health care and poor economic circumstances are eliminated.
This is going to take millions of dollars out of the economy in addition to having an adverse effect. That is what I think we have to protect against and that is what our obligation is as federal members of Parliament.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to congratulate my colleague for Moncton for initiating in trying to debate this motion a fundamental Canadian value, and that is the equal treatment of provinces across our nation.
On that basis I think the member has reminded us that the government must listen. It must open its heart again to this fundamental sensitivity to the needs of those who have least.
In this instance, when we try to decrease the escalator factor that allows for the averaging of payment, that allows for a stable funding and imposes this system on all provinces equally, it ought to follow that those with the

October 24, 1991
Supply
least base for taxation will be penalized most. All experts have said that.
The other thing I would like to point out is that while there may be an absolute increase in amount, it is the rate in proportion to the needs that we must be looking into.
I would just like to conclude my comments with a comment made by a doctor speaking for the Atlantic provinces. He says: "Transferring tax points from federal to provincial will not help compensate for losing federal cuts because you cannot tax something that is not there".


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, I rise this afternoon to take part in this debate which implies that the federal government is doing something to the Atlantic provinces that it does not do to anyone else, that threatens the stability of health care and education and that condemns the government for its destructive policy toward the fishery, the railway and the post office.
This afternoon we heard in Question Period questions put from the Atlantic province members concerning various government programs, that the provincial premiers and their own governments could do abetter job of it administering these things.
I would like to put on the record this afternoon that the Government of Canada currently has 50 federal-provincial agreements in effect in Atlantic Canada. These agreements cover a wide range of initiatives from highways to high-tech projects.
With the exception of one initiative for youth forestry in Newfoundland, all these agreements are already jointly managed with the provinces and the vast majority are implemented by provincial governments.
These federal-provincial agreements have been signed under the umbrella of economic and regional development agreements with each province in 1984. These ERDAs establish joint priorities for each of the provinces and provide a process for changing priorities as economic circumstances warrant. ERDA priorities have changed since 1984, and these have been revised accordingly to reflect emerging issues.
As to ACOA funds currently being directed to the private sector through its action program, these funds are intended to promote job creation, increased earned income, entrepreneurship, innovation and technology development, and increased trade among others. Surely the provinces cannot disagree with these federal priorities.
I would like to take the next few minutes to discuss various things that are taking place within the fisheries. The Government of Canada is following a strong integrated set of policies to achieve important goals for the Canadian fisheries: first, a strong Atlantic fishing industry in a more diversified and self-reliant economy; second, a stable Pacific fishery dealing successfully with allocation issues at home and capable of competing in a strenuous international environment; third, an environment against destructive foreign overfishing; fourth, protection of the aquatic environment; fifth, an aboriginal fisheries policy recognizing the important rights of native peoples in Canada's fisheries and encouraging their participation in the management of these resources; sixth, an increased development of recreational fisheries; seventh, promotion of ocean based industries and development; and finally a review of fisheries management structures and institutional mechanisms.
We are making important progress on all of these fronts. Our challenge in Atlantic Canada is both short term and long term. Fishermen in many parts of Atlantic Canada this year faced the worst environmental conditions in memory. The Government of Canada has responded quickly and comprehensively to this crisis, beginning in May with payments totalling $18 million as compensation for severe ice conditions which delayed or prevented thousands of fishermen from pursuing their livelihood. More recently, with the inshore season largely over and the extent of catch failure assessed, this government announced further assistance of $39 million in a program of employment measures, fish processing opportunities and gear-up payments for more than
10,000	fishermen and plant workers in Newfoundland and Labrador, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the Quebec lower north shore.
This assistance totalling more than $57 million is targeted to help meet critical needs across the Atlantic provinces. The employment measures alone are creating more than 45,000 weeks of work, much of it contributing directly to essential work on small craft harbours, fish habitat and the maintenance of fish plants.
October 24, 1991

Catch failure is a recurring problem. Part of our long-term strategy is to find permanent structures or approaches to the income and employment problems that fishermen and plant workers in one area or another face every year.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, along with the Minister of Employment and Immigration, will be consulting with the provinces, the fishing industry and unions to address these problems.
I might add that we do not have all the answers ourselves, but we look to others who are in the industry. We also look to the provinces to assist us in developing these programs.
Foreign overfishing is a serious problem. At recent meetings of the northwest Atlantic fisheries organizations we were able to make some progress against overfishing outside Canada's 200-mile limit by countries of the European community.
A new control system has been adopted called the hail system, to try to ensure vessels keep to their quotas. We continue to press for more comprehensive improvements to the international control measures outside the 200-miles. European ministers realize the situation is serious. There is a great deal of misinformation, some of it intentional, about foreign fishing inside the Canadian zone. We only allow into the zone fleets from countries that co-operate with us in conservation outside the 200-mile zone.
Those allowed into the zone to fish are only allowed to take fish that Canadians do not want to catch. If the foreigners did not catch these fish no one else would and they would go to waste.
Every foreign vessel carries a Canadian observer at the vessel's expense, and these vessels are policed rigidly to see they fish only what we allow them to fish.
These vessels provide benefits to Canadians. Their operators buy fish from Canadians. They land fish at Canadian plants providing employment for Canadians. They transfer their technology to Canadians and they also do research that we need in our waters.
A limited and controlled foreign fishery in Canadian waters is not an evil. It brings benefits that Canadians should appreciate, and many do. The government is committed to ending foreign overfishing outside the 200
Supply
miles by the present process if possible and by whatever means needed consistent with international law.
In the Pacific area important progress is being made toward international agreements to end driftnet fishing. Canada is in the forefront of international efforts to stop driftnet fishing and to promote high seas fishery conservation. Current developments include a new Ca-nada-U.S.-Japan-U.S.S.R. convention which is expected to stop high seas salmon fishing in the north Pacific in the summer of 1992 and a new UN resolution to stop all driftnet fishing in the North Pacific this summer as well.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall when we were in Japan last week that we raised this question of driftnet fishing. You were there and heard the discussion that took place with the Japanese on this very critical problem that we face.
We are strengthening the management of fisheries in this country. Members opposite supported the government last year in amending the Fisheries Act. The changes strengthened our conservation strategy and the long-term rebuilding of stocks by providing increased penalties for illegal fishing and damage to fish habitat. We are now entering the second year of the Atlantic Fisheries Adjustment Program which is devoting $584 million to rebuilding fish stocks, adjustments for individuals and communities, and opportunities for diversification.
Through AFAP our scientific research programs have been expanded by $40 million. We are increasing our knowledge base to rebuild stocks of northern cod, northern gulf cod, Scotia groundfish and snow crab. We are implementing new conservation measures to protect young fish and expanding surveillance and enforcement. We are working with the provinces to support older plant workers and trawlermen seeking opportunities outside the fishery.
Economic diversification projects are directing significant funding to underutilized species, fisheries development, aquaculture and marketing.
Court decisions of late, notably the decision in Sparrow, are not only clarifying aboriginal fisheries rights but spelling out an important duty for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to protect and support those rights. DFO faces a great challenge to work with native

October 24, 1991
Supply
people and others in the fishery to sustain and build fish stocks while providing for native participation. Native participation will take many forms, not the least of which is co-management of stock enhancement, fish habitat programs and opportunities in both the commercial and recreational sectors.
On the Pacific coast and in Atlantic Canada DFO is playing a vital leadership role to resolve these complex issues through consensus and co-operation with native and other interests, as well as the local governments themselves.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech that my colleague has just given. He has touched on one aspect of the Atlantic economy, the fisheries, which has been in a state of mismanagement and decline since this government took power.
I can take a great deal of exception to his comments as to whether the fisheries aid package which has been recently announced is timely, because it is not and whether it is adequate, because it is not.
Contrary to the statements that the member made, I want to make sure that the public is not intentionally or unintentionally misled into believing that all the fishermen in the Burin Peninsula in Newfoundland down to Cape Breton are jumping up and down with glee saying: "Thank you, thank you, thank you federal Tory government", because they are not.
What this government has clearly done has been too little too late. It has caused the collapse in the fishery by allowing too much foreign overfishing, and it has not provided the funds for diversification both of the fishery and of product market overseas.
That is not what I am going to speak on. I want to ask the member who has given his two cents worth on fish, although it is absolutely entirely wrong, does he believe in the principle of equalization? It is a principle that this country has been built on.
I mentioned this earlier, in our Constitution Act, 1982 is enshrined the principle of equalization. It says that one of the underpinnings of this country is that funds shall be transferred into areas to ensure that national standards
and programs will be available to all, no matter where they live.
Does he not agree that in an area of less than 2.4 million people the cutbacks since 1988 in excess of $1.5 billion in regional development grants, the cutbacks of hundreds of millions of dollars in transfers through EPF for health care and the cutback of hundreds of millions of dollars in EPF to post-secondary education coupled with the recent cut of $170 million will ensure that those provinces on the Atlantic coast, the four Atlantic provinces which had a very limited tax base, do not have the flexibility to recapture through additional taxation the moneys that are lost?
Does he not believe that this is eroding the principle of equalization and the ability of those provinces to deliver services of national standards to the people who live in the Atlantic?


Ross Belsher: The quick answer is no. The reason I say that is because I believe in equalization payments.
A formula has been developed. A formula has been enshrined in law. This year it just so happens that the total economy of Canada is down.


Ronald MacDonald: Whose fault? Who caused it?


Ross Belsher: If a government could turn on the economy by the snap of its fingers, would we not be very stupid not to? If we have so much influence over the economy, would we not be foolish on this side not to turn on the tap and make sure the economy is robust?
The way you are sounding is that we are deliberately trying to turn things down. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are talking about us singling out Atlantic Canada here. There is a deficit in this country. Have you ever once mentioned the deficit? Get your head out of the sand. We have a horrendous deficit in this country and unless we come to grips with it we are going to go down the tubes.
There is a sharing that has to take place across this country. There has not been one cut made to any program to Atlantic Canada that has not been made to every other province in the country.


Ronald MacDonald: That is simply not true.


Ross Belsher: That is true, and you know it.
October 24, 1991

I asked the member opposite to name a program, and he could not. In the equalization payments no one in Canada has been singled out and you know it. Do not go out and say that because you are speaking falsely if you say those kinds of things.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In the exchange we just had I certainly hope that the member opposite is not trying to imply that I am misleading the House when I stand up here and indicate that there have been massive cuts to Atlantic Canada.


An hon. member:: I would like you to clarify that.


An hon. member:: You said intentionally mislead when you were talking to him.


An hon. member:: Or unintentionally. Check the "blues".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I ask for the
collaboration of the two sides of the House. I think it is a matter of opinion.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, on a different tack with the same sort of subject-and I mean this not in a rhetorical sense but in a very serious manner-I am aware that the hon. parliamentary secretary to the minister may not be totally familiar with the intricacies of my riding which is essentially a fishing riding and with some of the emotion involved in this very difficult issue.
As a parliamentarian he has had to deal with equally difficult issues such as potential base closings in his riding. I know that he has a feeling for the kind of difficulties we are facing here. It is with that background and an acceptance that he may not have the total details that perhaps I would have because I am the member for, I believe, the largest fishing riding in this country.
I want to give him some insight into the difficulties that I see facing me every moment. I just called my constituency office and the phone is constantly ringing. This is not rhetoric; this is really the goods.
They are upset about a number of things, but I am not going to get into a long litany about the failure of the fishery or who mismanaged it. It is not irrelevant to the conversation but it misses the point here.
Supply
The point is that the government came through with a grant to help those who are in trouble, and there is no question that it was seen as a relief. If you really bare-bones this grant, however, and take away the herring subsidy and the subsidies for CIDA and all the rest of the stuff, we are looking at $25 million for 10,000 people. Actually only $9 million goes to Newfoundland but the average in Atlantic Canada works out to $2,500. That may sound like a lot of money but it does not sound like a lot of money to me.
I want to convey to the hon. parliamentary secretary that his minister did rise-and I want to use this as a statement of fact; I am not being vitriolic about it-and say when responding to a question in this House on Monday which suggested by the hon. member for Burin-St. George's that we were experiencing great difficulties in there not being enough money to go around, and I quote if I could-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I hope that the hon. member will soon come to his question.


Fred J. Mifflin: I quote:
It has been suggested in the House and on the radio that there is not sufficient money. I am advising the House now that money is being transferred down. There is more than adequate money.
With respect to whether a person qualifies, the rules are generous and any one who can show a reasonable connection to the fishery or to being a plant worker is going to be assisted, or my name is not John Carnell Crosbie.
My question is for the parliamentary secretary. I am aware that people are being turned off by some of the offices, the CEC offices, because they reckoned they had not had a reasonable attachment to the fisheries. The criteria seem to be-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The hon. parliamentary secretary.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member opposite I would trust that in my remarks I have not sounded insensitive to the needs of the people in Atlantic Canada and the dire straits that some of them find themselves in. I grew up on the prairies and so I know what dire straits are. I was a depression baby in southern Saskatchewan and that says a lot to many people who understand those kinds of things.
The member opposite talked about it being only $9.2 million for Newfoundland. The figures I have been shown, in the job creation program alone, indicate up to $12.7 million for Newfoundland and Labrador.

October 24, 1991
Supply
There are also the herring export program, a portion of which would be collected I think by Newfoundlanders, and part of the food aid package, the $4 million that goes into that, some of which would go to Newfoundland as well.
When you start looking at the total program, it would be very nice if we had more money to put into it. We have to be so very careful because we do not have money. We are having to borrow money. We are staring at the $30.5 billion deficit this year. Dear knows assistance is needed. That is why we have taken the action we have. We just trust that it will meet the objectives as have been set out. We did go and we did consult with the industry, with the people who are in the industry, in order to come up with these figures.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join in the debate on a very important motion that I think is correct in all its wording condemning the current government for reducing the level of transfer payments to the Atlantic provinces, thereby threatening the stability of health care and education" and further condemning "the government for its destructive policies toward the fishery, the railway and the post office". I mentioned earlier today during debate that it is unfortunate the motion did not cover areas such as forestry.
I believe we may have an amendment at the end of my comments that we hope will address these problems. It is pretty clear what is happening when you take a look at the evidence of what this government is doing, not just to Atlantic Canada but really to the rest of the country as well.
It is really treating the different regions of Canada in a very unfair way. The policies of this government are shown to have failed. It has pursued neo-conservative economic policies, the Thatcher and Reagan agenda that is being thrown out of the window by voters across Canada. We hope that will happen soon in a federal election in the next year or two when Canadians have an opportunity to judge this government on its economic policies.
What I would like to do in the time that I have is just talk briefly a bit about the question of equalization payments, the reductions that are taking place there, the
fishery concerns in the Atlantic provinces, and a bit about forestry matters which unfortunately were not covered in the Liberal motion. I then would like to mention what we think are a couple of proposals that the people in Atlantic Canada would approve of. We hope they are listening to this debate today, hearing the debate and making some observations about what members in this House have to say about the concerns and the mess that this government has got us into.
The members of the government side say that there is no money, that the deficit is rising and that we have to be concerned about that. That is true. Just recently this government extended a $1 billion line of credit to Saddam Hussein. If Saddam Hussein moved to Halifax this government might then be prepared to help out the Atlantic provinces more than it is now.
All we have to look at is how many millions of dollars are going to be cut to the Atlantic provinces because of the activities of this government. According to news reports, primarily from the premiers' conference held recently, Newfoundland will be losing $20 million, Nova Scotia will lose $21 million, Prince Edward Island will lose $11 million, and New Brunswick will lose $64 million. The total-


Ms. Campbell (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just wonder if I could correct an extremely serious error which the hon. member has made about the $1 billion line of credit. It is not to Iraq. It was to Iran. It is not the government of Saddam Hussein. I think that should be corrected for the record.


Brian L. Gardiner: Again it points out that the government is more prepared to help countries outside Canada than it is its own regions in Canada. It is important that Canadians understand that. Those lines of credit and funds could go to help many parts of this country.
The important part is what this government has done to the economies of the Atlantic Canada regions and other parts. The premiers met the other day to try and discuss this major cutback of $116 million to the Atlantic provinces.
What do we have in the maritimes? We have a Tory premier so far. We do not know how long he will be in office, and then we have three Liberal premiers. They are really tough. They are going to meet with the federal government. I think these premiers out there are wimp-
October 24, 1991

ing out on their own provinces and on representing the interests of the people there.
It has come to the point where it is not just going to be the elected people in this House speaking out and trying to defend Atlantic Canada. It is going to be the people of the maritimes and Newfoundland and Labrador, who will be speaking out. As one member already mentioned, they are phoning the offices of members of Parliament saying how ridiculous this government's policies are and that it should be thrown out of office at the earliest opportunity.
Let us take a look at some of the resource issues, critical issues not just to the maritimes and Newfoundland and Labrador but to all parts of Canada and the management of those resources. We have had a lot of debate in this House about the concerns over the fishery in the maritimes. There has not been as much debate, unfortunately, over concerns about forestry in the maritimes.
Let us take a look at what some people have said about the fishery issue in Atlantic Canada. Perhaps it is dragging out the debate to point fingers at Liberals and Conservatives, but at some point I think it is important that people understand which governments were in office while this was happening.
As some background to just how important the fishery is to the people in Atlantic Canada, just let me quote from the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council: "The fishery is arguably the most important single industry in Atlantic Canada. Over 100,000 people are directly employed in harvesting and processing in more than 1,300 communities. Over half of these towns and villages depend solely on fishing".
It is clear that in the whole debate around management of our fisheries resource, the whole question of foreign overfishing, is an issue that has been mishandled by this government and previous governments.
Let us take a quick look at the record. In April 1989 the Prime Minister committed the federal government to putting an end to the practice of foreign overfishing, and nothing has been done.
At the November 1989 First Ministers' Conference, the Prime Minister was told that between 1986 and 1989 the European community had overfished the Grand Bank by some 600 per cent over the quota set by NAFO. Nothing was done.
Supply
In February of this year a press release from the Department of External Affairs indicated that the European community had taken five times more fish in 1990 than it was allocated. It is incredible what this country is allowing to happen to the most important resource for the maritimes. It seems that the government has washed its hands of the entire matter, thus putting into question the survival of many of the communities that depend on the fishing industry for their very survival, whether they will continue to exist.
One of the comments made in some of the reports on the fundamental problems with the infrastructure in the maritimes is that along with the high unemployment and the fewer jobs being created people are leaving the area. Nothing can be worse for an area than when the young people leave and move to major centres. More problems are created in the major urban centres that we cannot handle. We have to give reasons and opportunities for people to want to stay in the fishing and forestry communities because that is where their livelihoods are.
That is where we hope young people will return and stay to help develop and improve the life of people there. In our party we have said that Canada should move toward extending control over the entire Grand Bank including the nose and tail. The organization charged with protecting it, NAFO, has failed to do so. We have to provide more and more effort in this area to ensure that Canada's fishery resource is not overfished as has happened in most cases to date under this government.
As I mentioned earlier, one particular concern that is not mentioned in the motion is the issue of forestry. I have two general comments I would like to make in that regard.
To the best of my knowledge-and I stand to be corrected on this-we have yet to ensure that the forest agreement between the federal and provincial governments is signed in Nova Scotia. If some members opposite can tell me otherwise I hope they will. That is an important agreement and, if done properly, it will ensure that both levels of government co-operate in the management of our forests.
We even signed an agreement in British Columbia under the former Social Credit government. It did not come anywhere near what was needed, but with all the

October 24, 1991
Supply
difficulties that provincial government had we managed to sign an agreement. Now, for some reason, there seems to be an inability by the federal government here and the provincial government in Nova Scotia actually to sign that agreement. Maybe we are waiting for an election. I do not know. That could be the case. I guess we will have to wait until that election is called and then likely we will find out how quickly the announcement can be made.
I have had the opportunity to visit a number of the Atlantic provinces and, this past summer, to have paid a visit to a number of the forestry operations there. I found it very interesting. Of course many of the concerns and problems of the people in Nova Scotia are similar to those in my part of the country in British Columbia. It is an example of the problems in the forest industry. This government has followed a laissez-faire or a hands off the economy approach, unless of course one is a friend of the Conservatives. Then it is socialism all the way, but for anybody else, average Canadians, it is free enterprise: let the market do whatever it wants. Resulting from that many in the maritimes have alleged a rip-off of our fisheries and forestry resources.
What do we do when mills and what have you are run down? It takes millions of dollars of new capital to invest and rebuild. We end up with people who are thrown on the trash heap because they are not needed any more.
One of the major problems of course in the Nova Scotia area is the older mills. Some have alleged that the high dollar pursued by this government is a hidden part of the free trade agreement with the United States. That is certainly hurting the Nova Scotia area and economy. A great deal of work remains to be done in terms of the rehabilitation of forests. I am again mentioning Nova Scotia in particular. Working closely with the woodlot owners is a positive way that small entrepreneurs, people in the agricultural field and others, can actually get hands on experience managing our forests properly, providing fibre supply to mills and what have you. But the effort is not going to go anywhere if the government in Nova Scotia and the government here in Ottawa have yet to be able to sign that forest agreement. It is one of the vehicles by which we can ensure that proper management. We can do a lot of other things in our forests, good things, that cannot be done if that agreement is not signed.
During the earlier debate members mentioned ACOA as one of the proposals that this government has put together. We have a western diversification office in western Canada and ACOA in Nova Scotia. The figure was mentioned by my colleague about the success that ACOA was having. We know that the track record could be better. We understand that some 70 per cent of the projects funded by ACOA have gone under. It is part of the business. Some businesses just do not make it and that is the way it goes, you make a judgment call. But 70 per cent going under is a little high and we would certainly hope, with ACOA continuing, that the record can be improved. I also hope we take a look at one of the criticisms I heard of ACOA when I was in the area which is that it seemed to be reluctant to encourage local development and local ideas. It seemed to be more excited about ideas coming in from elsewhere. It tried to open a warehouse, got things going and in six months or a year it fell apart. Nobody was opposed to ACOA per se, but the emphasis could be shifted somewhat to make it a more successful operation.
We should try to ensure that when the federal government attempts to do some work in a community there is a co-ordinated approach. I suspect, in many areas, that is just not the case.
Our caucus met just yesterday with representatives from the Sault and from Wawa about the work that they are doing. They are trying to pull together what sometimes seems like an incredible list of different agencies and particular federal agencies and actually try to deliver a service. That takes a major effort.
A couple of proposals that we have had are worth looking at. We think there is room for the federal government to move in this area. This government has some problems with the approach it is taking, but I do not think it should write some of these ideas off. I think they are good, positive ideas.
Two of our proposals are a community development fund and a single industry community fund. Under these proposals, funds would be provided to co-operative and community development corporations and other community-based initiatives. In the case of single industry towns, funding would also be made to assist those communities to explore diversification options.

A number of other comments were made. One of them is about public sector pension funds and where they are invested. So there are a number of experiments that have taken place in the country that obviously we can all learn from. But it is unfortunate that this government has really had some difficulty in trying to understand some proposals and projects.
In summary, this motion is an important one. It is important to get a message to this government about the concerns from Atlantic Canada. The few times that I have visited the area I have found the people to be absolutely wonderful. They are always more than pleased to discuss their concerns with people in responsible positions about the economy and what can be done. But a government that is aloof and not prepared to deal with things directly will never be of benefit to the maritimes.
We need some initiatives and opportunities from this government so that it does not just throw the maritimes on the trash heap like it is wont to do.
In conclusion, I would like to move an amendment. I have it right here for you to send up. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words following
the word fishery and adding the following thereto:
passenger and freight railway, forestry, shipbuilding and the post office and, further, that the premiers of the Atlantic provinces be condemned for their failure to fight Ottawa on behalf of their provinces.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair will take the amendment motion presented by the hon. member under advisement.
Questions and comments? Resuming debate, the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleagues who have spoken so eloquently and so forthrightly on this very, very difficult and disturbing subject.
There are any number of subjects that I wish I would be speaking on this evening. Since I am speaking on this I
Supply
want to try to remove the rhetoric from my presentation. It sometimes does creep in, particularly when emotion is involved. I want to stick to the facts and I want to try to create a perception in the nine minutes or so that are left of those people who I represent and how they have responded to this motion.
This motion talks about the cut in the transfer payments to the Atlantic provinces. It threatens the stability of health care and education and creates destructive policy with regard to the fishery, railway and post office.
Since the debate began this morning I have been talking to my constituency office and to some constituents. They have great difficulty understanding how we on this side of the House can get up and say that the government has reduced payments and the hon. Minister of Finance this morning talked about increasing them.
If I could clarify that. I want to take one example. Indeed they have increased but not to the extent promised. If I could use some figures that were quoted for Newfoundland, the Minister of Finance said this morning that in 1984-85 the per capita transfer payments amounted to $1,617 per person. He went on in the same breath to say that seven years later, in 1991-92 it was $2,473. Well on the surface that sounds very good. It is over 50 per cent and I am still getting the figures. But I did a calculation based on some pamphlets that I read and to stay abreast of inflation alone in those seven years, you needed over $2,500. So the $2,473 did not keep those people who were relying on transfer payments abreast of inflation. In that interval of seven years they experienced 22 tax increases, plus a goods and services tax. So I would suggest that that $2,473 buying power is not $1,617 as it was seven years ago, but more like $1,300 or $1,400.
I am sure the minister did not do this deliberately, but when you hear it in a phrase you can draw some pretty poor conclusions from it and I want to make that clear.
The second point I want to make clear is that there was a formula for the Established Programs Financing, which was one of 14 ways of transferring money to the provinces. The EPF, which is the provinces' assistance in financing health services, extended health care and post-secondary education was calculated by an authority, the National Council on Welfare which was quoted by

Supply
my colleague from Gander-Grand Falls. It worked on changing the formula, which started in 1986. It started going with the economy. Then it was the economy minus two per cent. Then it was the economy minus three per cent and that was extended for two years, then for another five years and another three years beyond that.
The difference in those payments for which health and education rely on is $100 million in one year. The total from 1986 to 2000 is $100 billion for all of Canada. That is $100 billion less than it would have been if the formula had not been changed by the government.
That certainly clarifies the issue for me. Very simply, yes, they have increased the EPF but they have not kept up with inflation. It is a lot less than the provinces had expected.
In the case of Newfoundland, the minister said himself that the transfer payments make up 45.5 per cent of the total budget of Newfoundland. It used to be almost 49 per cent. It has gone down by many, many billions of dollars.
I want to talk also a little bit about the post office. A few years ago it was the plan of Canada Post to amalgamate, remove, change and replace 5,221 post offices that employ 10,000 people. In rural post offices 83 per cent of the employees are women.
We have in Newfoundland about 180 rural post offices, and they are being closed left, right and centre. If that was not bad enough, as again pointed out by my colleague, the head of Canada Post is getting a bonus of $100,000.
If you can tell me why that does not upset the people in my riding who see this from afar, by golly, Mr. Speaker, you would be a very understanding person. Let me tell you something else. I would like to create an image.
You are there in Newfoundland, and you are watching this happen. You are from the district of Port au Bras where a lot of fishing takes place, good professional fishermen as indeed in all the ridings.
They are watching foreigners take fish from a NAFO area that everybody in Newfoundland deserves: 3 November Oscar, 3NO. I have not got a track, but the northern edge of that NAFO area is 45 miles off the coast of Newfoundland. That is 45 miles. On a clear day, you can see the foreigners fishing from the capes on the Avalon Peninsula. They are fishing within our area. They
are taking our fish and our fishermen are not allowed to go out and fish there.
They decide: "Well, we are going to try it on for size anyway. We are so frustrated'. So, they go out and fish and the government sends the navy to go out and arrest our vessels when we know that foreigners are overfishing.
I am not simplifying that. Newfoundlanders are watching that and the government is asking: Why am I getting emotional? Why am I using language that is unbecoming to me?
All you have to do is be in my riding for 10 minutes. You would do an awful lot of things that are not becoming to you or anybody else of reasonable measure. With regard to railway, a few years ago the government said: "We got a deal for you. We are going to give you $800 million over 15 years".
The railway in Newfoundland was losing $50 million a year and in 15 years, that was $750 million. They said: "We are going to give you $800 million and we are going to give you some roads". On September 1, 1988, we lost the railroads. We did not get any roads, and the provincial government made $50 million on the deal. That is not a good deal at all.
What have I covered: rails, fishing, post office and the clarification of the transfer payments. There is one other area that has become a by-word with Atlantic Canadians, certainly Newfoundlanders. It does not matter what the Minister of Fisheries says, it does not matter what his parliamentary secretary says, it does not matter what the Prime Minister says. The fact of the matter is that in our opinion, we are the only country in the world that gives away the very resources upon which that part of Canada depends to foreigners, legally.
We give it to them legally and we know they are taking almost as much as we are allowing Newfoundlanders and Atlantic Canadians to catch illegally, but we send our destroyers out to arrest Canadian fishing vessels and bring them home. We do not get tangled up with foreigners, because the last time that happened I think we had some difficulties catching them when they went back to New Bedford.
I am not blaming that on the navy. What I am saying is that if you have something you want to enforce, why do you not target the foreigners, the ones we should be targeting. If you cannot do it with ships, try something else. I do not know, I am not the government. It should have the answers to that.
October 24, 1991

There is one other area while I am on the business of fishing and overfishing. I talked earlier about the Atlantic Catch Failure program. I really take objection to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans-my colleagues do as well-trying to create the impression that there is more than adequate money there and that the program is generous.
The phones in my riding have not stopped ringing for the last week. I can tell you there are 400 or 500 people in my riding alone who cannot qualify because there is not enough money.
In conclusion-I am going to wrap up-I do not often become emotional. I do not often use language or rhetoric in this House, but I am telling you that we have been moved in Atlantic Canada. We understand the difficulty the government has with the deficit. It seems that every time it moves its hand to initiate a policy, we get the dirty end of the stick. That is the perception.
If you relive the last 10 minutes that I have described to you, it would be difficult to have a perception other than that. So, I enjoin my colleagues from the other side of the House to have some feeling for the difficulty we are in, to show compassion and perhaps some imagination and creative thinking in trying to rectify this demoralizing and devastating situation of which we are speaking.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the opportunity to take part in this debate today on a very important motion, one that was put forward by my party and one that concerns Atlantic Canada.
This motion condemns the government for reducing the level of transfer payments to Atlantic Canada because it will threaten the stability of health care and education and it also further condemns the government for its destructive policies toward the fishery, the railway and the post office.
My riding is Malpeque, Prince Edward Island. I want to say that in a small province like mine, reducing the level of transfer payments, as this government has done, has had a very devastating effect upon the whole economy. It is important that the federal government realize what a difficult position it has put my province in because of the reduction of transfer payments and the
Supply
other economic policies which this government has inflicted on Atlantic Canada.
I am not here this afternoon to condemn in whole the equalization formula and I am not advocating in any way that it be scrapped. But when you are dealing with a small province like Prince Edward Island, I think it is important that the federal government realize the difficult position that a small province like Prince Edward Island finds itself in because of the reduction of transfer payments.
We are talking about my province that operates with a total budget of a little over $700 million. We are talking about a province where the per capita income is 34 per cent below the average. This province that has undergone an estimated economic loss of $40 million to $50 million due to problems experienced by our potato industry as a result of this government's mishandling of the PVY-N potato crisis.
That is for the first year alone. It is anyone's guess what we will be losing this year.
We are also talking about a province that has lost nearly $100 million due to changes in federal payments made by this government since 1988. To take that $100 million and break it down, it means that $45 million of that has been in equalization payments and $54 has been in established program funding changes, changes to the EPF. As we know, that is the money that is given to the provinces to go to health and post-secondary education.
Just as important, we are talking about a region of the country that is faced with very high unemployment. The unemployment rate in my province is approximately 17 per cent. We have businesses in the country that are going under in record numbers. The bankruptcy rate in eastern Canada increased 14 per cent this past August.
Many of the problems I have mentioned are simply a result of the federal government's economic policy that has advocated high interest rates and a high dollar over the creation of jobs.
This week my province learned that expected revenues from the equalization payments would be reduced by another $17 million. The point that I want to make is not so much that Prince Edward Island will need to find an additional $17 million in an already tight budget. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that it will be very difficult. The point that I want to make here is that my province, along with other regions of our country, has been placed in a

October 24, 1991
Supply
desperate situation by policies and past budgets of this government.
The latest shortfall of $17 million as I say will be hard to find in an already tight budget in Prince Edward Island. When you compare that with the $100 million that my province has lost by changes that this government has made to the established program funding and equalization payments since 1988, it may not seem that large. Given the current economic condition in my province, I could tell you that it will have a significant impact.
My province like many others is struggling to maintain its health care system. I know that many of my constituents have spoken to me about their concerns regarding the health care system, what this government is doing and about what this would mean down the road.
The minister of health and social services on Prince Edward Island has expressed his concern many times. I want to quote the Hon. Wayne Cheverie: "The reduction in the rate of increase and transfer payments is an attack on the basic foundation of our health care system. They represent drastic reductions of federal contributions that will have major consequences for the system of health care as we know it on Prince Edward Island".
That was the Minister of Health and Social Services. He along with all Islanders are really concerned about what the cuts in the transfer payments are going to mean to a small province like Prince Edward Island. Really we are seeing an example of these cuts already. We have already seen some hospital beds close and cuts to other services.
I know that my time is limited. I want to pass on to another area where these transfer payments are affecting and that certainly is education. This past fall the post-secondary students certainly felt the brunt of the cuts to the established programs funding as they were forced to pay higher tuition fees.
The president of the University of Prince Edward Island has expressed his concern about the dwindling government funding and he has indicated that this was the reason for the increase. He said: "Because of budget restraints and reductions in federal payments, the province increased UPEI's funding by only 4.1 per cent. The only thing we could do was raise tuitions".
That is a quote from Dr. Elliot who is the president of the University of Prince Edward Island and that is exactly what happened. They raised tuition fees by 15 per cent. Really what that means to each student is approximately $280 more for a 10-course term.
Mr. Speaker, you have indicated to me that my time is running out. I just want to make some closing remarks by calling on the government to recognize the damage that its policies has caused Atlantic Canadians, to recognize the devastating effect that they are having on the whole economy in the eastern part of Canada and also to ask the federal government to put forward its commitment that the level of transfer payments will not be further eroded by destructive policies like this government has advocated in the past.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before resuming debate I would like to return to the proposed amendment of the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley. Unfortunately it raises a new question that can only be considered as a distinct motion after proper notice as set out in Beauchesne's 6th edition, citation 579(2). Therefore, I regret to inform the hon. member that his amendment is out of order.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Egmont. I apologize. I do not see the hon. member for South Shore.

The hon. member for Egmont is agreeable to the Chair recognizing the hon. member for South Shore.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning I would like to thank you for the obvious compliment you showed me. Obviously my diet is having an effect and I am wasting away to nothing.
I know the House waits with great interest for the remarks of my hon. friend from Egmont but with your indulgence I might make a brief intervention into the discussion here today. Needless to say I read with great interest the motion of my hon. friend from Gander-Grand Falls who I know has a great and longstanding
October 24, 1991

interest in Atlantic Canada issues. Elis omnibus motion seems to suggest that the government has done less than well by Atlantic Canada.
I do not know if that is the point he is trying to get across or not but obviously he has been missing a few things with respect to what has been going on in Atlantic Canada. I would like to share with him some of the perspectives and views that I might have on this.
I noticed that he begins by talking about transfer payments. I listened with interest to my hon. friend opposite with respect to transfer payments and higher education funding as it affected Prince Edward Island. I find it amazing that every time I come into this place and hear my hon. friends opposite, be they from the Liberal Party or the New Democratic Party, they always talk about ways that governments can spend money. They are a little less good at telling us what taxes should be raised or whether we should increase the deficit.
We know that our friends in the Liberal Party are real experts at increasing deficits because when they left power in 1984 they left a deficit of $38 billion and a national debt of $200 billion. These have compounded to being a $400 billion debt today. They left us a $16 billion operating deficit that this government, through wise and sound management, has transformed into a $12 billion operating surplus. Now that is performance.
When we talk about reducing the level of transfer payments in the Atlantic provinces what we are really talking about is government spending. My hon. friends opposite are all in favour of government spending, though they seem to ignore the fact that the only thing you spend is taxpayers' dollars. I want to tell him something, and it is that the message I am getting from many of the Atlantic Canadians that I know, including the 77,000 I have the privilege to represent here is that they do not want higher taxes. They have had enough of taxes. I have heard my hon. friends opposite complain about taxes. They have complained about tax reform which is one of the wise measures this government has introduced to tiy to have a more equitable and fair tax system and a tax system that is going to facilitate economic growth and development in this country.
Supply
It is only through taxation that we accrue the revenues that pay for all the wonderful things that my hon. friends opposite think we should have, including transfer payments, including for example the $800 million that is paid to the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada through unemployment insurance. I hear some of my friends from Atlantic Canada complain that this government is taking a great deal of interest in supporting our farmers in western Canada. We had an announcement a couple of weeks ago of $800 million of aid to western agriculture in a time of crisis. We forget that every year we put $800 million into our Atlantic fishery in support, not to mention the other financial supports that are provided to our fishery in Atlantic Canada.
As my hon. friend from Gander-Grand Falls knows, and I am sure he applauded the government and indeed this Minister of Fisheries of Oceans, when not two weeks ago he brought down a $39 million aid package in support of the Newfoundland fishing industry which has faced the most severe crisis in its history with the ice problem this year. But the government responded. This government is not afraid to spend money when it is necessary to assist and support Canadians, but this government believes in fiscal responsibility and, furthermore, it believes that those other levels of government that spend the public's money have a responsibility to be fiscally responsible as well.
So when this government brings in measures that cap transfer payments, though there is no cap on equalization which is so important to Atlantic Canada, there is no cap on the Canada Assistance Plan which is so important to Atlantic Canada and, of course, this government introduced the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency with a budget in excess of $1 billion to support economic development in Atlantic Canada, all those measures were introduced because they were necessaiy and supportive of Atlantic Canada.
Earlier today I heard my hon. friend from Halifax asking a question in the House about what this government was going to do to help Halifax. I thought it was a very commendable decision that this government made, not to mention a very' appropriate and proper decision that this government made, in placing the minesweeper

October 24, 1991
Supply
contract in the port of Halifax. It will mean $200 million of expenditure for Nova Scotia and for Halifax.
The government is prepared to spend money, but this government spends money frugally and wisely as it should, because every cent that is spent by government has to be accounted for because it comes from the taxpayers. I would urge my hon. friends opposite never to forget that.
My hon. friend from Gander-Grand Falls has recently been asking an awful lot of questions about expenditures by this government with respect to salaries of senior public servants and the heads of Crown corporations. I have got to tell him that he gets an awful lot of sympathy from this side of the House for some of those decisions. The one criticism that could perhaps be levelled at this government is that the system that it inherited from its predecessors which took back the two or three top levels of increments and made a bonus system. Unfortunately, it seems to have become a bonus system that is automatically paid, so my hon. friends opposite have been having a wonderful time looking at the fruits of the seeds that they planted when they set up that system so many years ago. I am sure my hon. friend from Gander-Grand Falls remembers it because he was a supporter of the government of the day that introduced that particular system.
When we talk about economic problems in Atlantic Canada, I think the first thing we have to recognize is that a good climate for economic growth is probably the thing that is going to help industry develop in Atlantic Canada better than anything else.
I look at my own constituency of South Shore, and I do not take anything away from any other part of Canada, but I must say there probably is no more beautiful place than the South Shore in Nova Scotia and there certainly no nicer place to live, to work and to make one's home. I look at one of the great accomplishments of this government with the free trade agreement which did not create that much change in tariff structures, but it guaranteed access to markets. I look at the constituency that I represent here and I look at the benefits that are accruing to my constituents because of that significant and important agreement.
Thke, for example, the Michelin tire plant in the town of Bridgewater which employs 1,500 people. Seventy per cent of the produce of that plant goes to the United States, 10 per cent goes to Japan and 20 per cent is sold to the rest of the market in Canada. Guaranteed access to the U.S. market is critically important to Michelin Tire.
I could mention the Christmas tree industry. My goodness, Mr. Speaker, though you would not know it on a warm day like today in Ottawa, but Christmas is approaching. If I may, I might just digress for a moment to remind all members of the House that as they look forward to celebrating Christmas this year they should think in terms of having a real Christmas tree, none of these phony artificial Christmas trees. I hope that you will take it up with the high officials in this place and the fire marshall to see that we enjoy the benefits of real Christmas trees right here in the House of Commons this year.
I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and remind the House that on the south shore of Nova Scotia we export 1.25 million Christmas trees a year. Fifty per cent of the Christmas trees exported from this country are exported from the south shore of Nova Scotia. As you know, Lunenburg county is the Christmas tree capital of Canada. That is a $30 million business from the south shore of Nova Scotia, a business that is secured and guaranteed because of the Canada-U.S. free trade agreement.
Furthermore the duties have come down on Christmas tree rates. As a result we have seen a significant increase in the export of Christmas tree wreaths, so that the access we are guaranteed through the FTA to our Nova Scotia Christmas trees is another benefit of the FTA.
I could go on and talk about the pulp and paper industry. I could talk about the Bowater-Mersey Paper plant which, like all paper plants in the world right now are going through tough times. We could be in even tougher times if we did not know for sure that the 80 per cent of the paper that is produced in that mill has a guaranteed access into the United States market where the market is for that paper. The 800 people who work for Bowater-Mersey I am sure are very pleased that their future is secure in large measure because of the access provided in that agreement.
October 24, 1991

Or, of course, I could talk about our fishery. I could talk about the 8,500 people on the south shore who make their livelihood through the fishing industry either as harvesters or processors in one way or another and the fact that two-thirds of the fish that we produce go to the United States.
I guess what I am saying is that my hon. friends opposite said this was a heinous, terrible and villainous thing. On the other hand, it sure has guaranteed the future of the people on the south shore of Nova Scotia.
Now that is not to say that we have not been through difficult times. That is not to say that the downturn in the fishery, which has been caused by overfishing by Canadians and foreigners and by various other circumstances, has not hurt, has not meant plant closures. And I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, and I know some of my hon. colleagues opposite have faced this, as have some of my colleagues on this side, there is nothing more difficult and challenging than to go to a one plant town the day they announce the plant is closing.
You know, I was in Lockeport two and a half years ago when they announced the closure of the National Sea Products plant. For two and a half years, under the leadership of an industrial adjustment service committee established under a program set up by the then minister of employment and immigration, the Canadian Jobs Strategy program, set that committee to work under the outstanding leadership of Mayor Mary Rose of Lockeport, working with provincial people and myself as a member. We have all worked together and we are going to continue to work until that plant reopens, which we hope is going to happen very soon.
It is the fact that the Government of Canada is open to responding to those kinds of problems that makes you hang in there and keep fighting.
I know my hon. friends from Newfoundland, I am sure, rejoiced this summer at the work that was done by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans when he put together deals and packages that reopened three major fish plants in Newfoundland. There was no partisan politics involved in that, because those fish plants were not all in ridings represented by government members. That is not the important thing. The important thing and the priority of this government is to look after the people. In this case we are talking about the people in communities in
Supply
Atlantic Canada, the same people that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was concerned about when he brought in his ice aid package a couple of weeks ago. He is very sensitive to the needs of people in communities and that sort of thing.
My hon. friend's motion makes reference to the fishery. I might say we have had some very responsible leadership during difficult times in terms of trying to bring fisheries policy and the administration in the direction of the fishery and the fishery resource under control so that the maximum number of people can make a reasonable living in the fishery.
One of the harsh realities this government has faced is having to deal with a difficult financial situation. It could have run away from it and kept running the bills up as its predecessor did, but no, that is not its policy. It has tried to take control of the situation and bring it under control so that the country can grow, as it is starting to do again.
I see the IMF has predicted significant growth in the Canadian economy beyond the growth that is expected in the other G-7 countries. The government has done the same thing with respect to the fishery and bringing the fishery under control. They have increased enforcement measures, which has cut down significantly on cheating and other kinds of overfishing by our own fishermen.
They brought a helicopter into southwestern Nova Scotia. There was some concern expressed. I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from the mayor of Yarmouth, Nova Scotia not so very long ago, and from the Chamber of Commerce in Yarmouth as well expressing concern that when the helicopter contract was up this March, it would not be renewed.
That helicopter has done a fantastic job of fisheries surveillance and it has done a wonderful job of air and sea rescue as well. It is a priority with everybody in southern Nova Scotia to see that contract renewed and see that helicopter remain there. It is an expensive thing, and the money has to be found.
Where there is a priority and people's needs and interests are in the forefront, this government responds. That is why I am confident that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Transport will work together and find the means whereby that helicopter will continue its stay in Yarmouth serving the people of that

October 24, 1991
Supply
area and in particular the fishermen who risk their lives every day going to sea.
We have heard a lot of talk from my hon. friend. He talks about the fishery, condemning the government for destructive policies. I notice he is frequently up in this Chamber talking about foreign vessels fishing in Canadian waters. I know, knowing my hon. friend as well as I do, it is certainly not his intention in any way to mislead anybody with respect to the issues that he raises.
I think it is very important that every single member of this House, and indeed Canadians, in particular Atlantic Canadians, understand where foreign vessels fish in the Atlantic fishery.
In 1973, the nations of the world that had an interest in the fishery and in the oceans of the world got together at the International Law of the Sea Conference and agreed that it was appropriate that coastal nations be allowed to declare a 200 mile economic fisheries control zone off their coasts.
Canada was one of the signatories to that agreement, but it was a voluntary agreement. The primary intent of that agreement was that it would give control of resources and particular fisheries resources to the adjacent state out beyond the continental shelf.
Except for three places in the world, 200 miles covers the limit out beyond the continental shelf. To our advantage or disadvantage, however you wish to describe it, the Grand Banks of Newfoundland are not one of those areas.
As I am sure you know, Mr. Speaker, because I know you have a great interest in the fishery, we have the nose and tail of the Grand Bank and the Flemish Cap sticking out beyond, and those areas are beyond Canada's international control. We have no right to tell anybody what to do in international waters.
Under that International Law of the Sea agreement, we are required to make available to other nations fisheries resources that we do not wish to harvest for ourselves in Canada. When we allow vessels from foreign countries to come inside our waters, we allow them to come in as we are required to do under the International Law of the Sea to harvest those resources that we have not been using.
Anybody who knows anything about fishing knows that when you put a hook or trawl line in the water, you are never 100 per cent sure what is going to come up and knows you have to have a by-catch.
I know my hon. friend from Gander-Grand Falls from time to time has had a great time talking about codfish allocations to these foreign nations when what he is really talking about are by-catches.
With a by-catch, one of the conditions that you can bring in, which is what this government did two years ago, is the condition that that by-catch has to be sold back for processing in Canadian plants so that in fact those fish do not go away from the plants where they could potentially create jobs for Canadians.
Similarly, I know my hon. friend talks about allocations of fish to the French, but something he never raises is the fact that before this government had the courage and the integrity to sit down and try to settle the 200 year old dispute with the French over the waters around St. Pierre and Miquelon that we had no idea how many fish they were taking.
The results of that now are that in fact there is less fish being taken now than there was before, but it is under control. As I am sure all members of the House are aware, we are awaiting the decision of the arbitration tribunal that will determine exactly where the lines are. We were fortunate enough to be able to use against the French the arguments that they themselves had used against the Channel Islands not so many years ago. It will be interesting to see. The important thing is that this government did not run away from the problem as its predecessor had done for years. It tackled the problem in the interests of Atlantic Canadians and in the interests of the Atlantic Canadian fishing industry.
One of the toughest problems we have yet to take on-and I know my friend from Gander-Grand Falls will be commenting on this-is taking on the challenge that we have too many people in his Province of Newfoundland-Labrador trying to make a living on too limited a resource in the fishery.
What do we do about that? I will be looking forward to hearing what he has to say about what his party proposes in solving that problem since he is suggesting that this government is not tackling those problems in a manner
October 24, 1991

that will have have long-term benefits for Atlantic Canada.
Do I sense, Mr. Speaker, that my time is winding down on me? I have many more comments I would like to make. Did I see you giving me the sign, or can I continue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: You may continue.


Peter L. McCreath: I will absolutely continue because I certainly welcome the opportunity. There are many more things I would like to say in regard to the topics my friend raised.
There are just a couple of more things I would like to say about the fishery. I mentioned the new measures with respect to enforcement, including the helicopter. I might mention that the Minister of Fisheries has recently spoken about a couple of other ideas that will bring decision-making in the fishery closer to the individuals in the industry. That is to say issues with respect to licensing and with quota allocations. Nothing would be better than to turn those things over to the industry so that the people who have to live with the decisions have a greater impact, if not a decisive impact in making those decisions.
I see that you are giving me the sign, so with that I will conclude at this point. I appreciate the opportunity to participate. I would be pleased to respond to my hon. friends opposite.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member just said a moment ago that there were too many fishermen in Newfoundland chasing too few fish.
The federal government announced two days ago that seven Japanese vessels would receive licences this year to catch tuna inside our 200 mile zone off his riding on the Scotia shelf. Does he not agree that foreign nations were given quotas this year inside Canada's 200 mile zone, in a meeting that took place in the hon. member's province? Under international agreement quotas were given for fish inside our 200 mile zone around Newfoundland, around Nova Scotia, to Bulgaria, Cuba, Denmark, including the Faro Islands and Greenland, to every country in the European Economic Community, to Japan, Norway, Poland, the U.S.S.R. and to another category called "others".
Supply
The only group there not allowed to come inside the 200 mile zone is the EEC. Does the hon. member not agree that before we start saying that there are too many Canadians chasing too few fish that first of all we should get rid of every single foreign fishing vessel in Canadian waters. Does he not agree that any Canadian, whether they are a full-time fishermen or if they are on welfare, has a right to go out there and fish before a foreign nation is given a licence by the Halifax office of the department?
I have seen him in action over in the Hague talking about foreign overfishing. I have seen him speak for three, four and five hours to those foreign nations, complaining about their fishing. He cannot deny it. Doesn't he agree that before one foreign nation is given a licence on our coast that every single Canadian has a right to that licence before it is given to a foreigner?


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to respond to those issues of my hon. friend because he has really just illustrated the point that I made in my general remarks, as I was confident he would.
First of all, I appreciate his raising the subject of our efforts on the other side of the ocean to persuade the Europeans to discontinue their destructive anti-environmental dangerous fishing effort outside Canada's 200 mile zone on the nose and tail of the Grand Bank. He knows perfectly well that one of the most destructive forces impacting negatively on northern Newfoundland is the destructive fishing that is going on by Spanish and Portuguese on the 2-J3KL cod stock outside, and on the flatfish stocks on the tail of the Grand Bank, primarily by Portuguese vessels. He knows that.
I am not sure whether he said I spoke eloquently, he said I spoke at length, but I must tell you that he and I were a great team over there, and contrary to what I have read in the press lately which suggested that he and I and others had other activities on our minds when we were over there-nonsensical stuff, by yellow-backed journalists-we were over there fighting for our fishermen as we should be. I agree 100 per cent with my hon. friend that not a single fish should be taken from within our waters by foreigners so long as we can get Canadians to go out there and fish it.
Now, when my hon. friend talks about allocations to foreign vessels to fish within our waters, you notice, my friends, that he neglected to mention what the quota allocations were that those vessels were getting. Did you

October 24, 1991
Supply
notice? I didn't notice his reference to that. Were they cod allocations, were they pollack allocations, were they haddock allocations? I don't recall his making any reference to that. My understanding of those allocations was that those allocations were from under-utilized stocks that we are not harvesting, things like silver hake and capelin.
I want to remind my hon. friend of the leadership that this government took, because this government has had a long-standing policy that we do not provide fisheries allocations to be bartered to foreigners. The previous Minister of Fisheries, now Minister of Employment and Immigration, in my judgment did a very courageous thing and he has been criticized roundly for it. He has been criticized in my constituency. I have had grief from plant owners and operators in my area over the allocations that that former Minister of Fisheries made in order to put the towns of Canso and Burgeo back into business again by making allocations of unused silver hake and capelin quotas so that they could be bartered for codfish from the Russians, which has put 500 people back to work in the town of Canso. That is decisive action by this government.
I might tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I am looking forward to this government doing the same thing for the community of Port Mouton. I have put a proposal before the Minister of Fisheries that would give us long-term allocations so that we can harvest those resources.
I will just finish on this point, Mr. Speaker, by saying that nobody is licensed to catch fish that Canadians are going to or are prepared to go and fish, nor should they be.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of the member's remarks he asked the rhetorical question: What taxes should be raised, as if taxes were always an outflow from the pockets of Canadians and were always a drain on them.
I would like to give the member an example of how using taxpayers' dollars, both in terms of loan guarantees as well as loans themselves and grants in the range of $5 million to a community, regrettably for the example not in Atlantic Canada, but in my riding, where that money ensured that the revenues of the province of Ontario, at $10 million a year, were maintained, and that revenues
for the federal government in the first year would be $16.5 million retained and $8.2 million thereafter, taxpayers' money.
I agree with him that it is taxpayers' money, not the government's money, although sometimes I think the government forgets that, which can be used to lever ongoing revenue to the federal and provincial treasuries. Should it not therefore be looked upon as an investment in the future of a community, a province or the country? I want to put it in the context of shipbuilding, particularly trawlers and what have you where we know that right now no trawlers are being built. It will take two or three years before from seven to nine a year are going to be built, but they cannot afford to have them built in Canada because of the high costs.
Would the hon. member not agree that we need to return to some form of level playing field internationally which means in the short term that we have got to match the kind of financial assistance offered to shipyards and to purchases of ships so that they can build them here at home instead of the reality today of almost 100 per cent of all shipyard work is government contracts?


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend raises several very interesting points that I would like to comment on but obviously in one minute I cannot. I will briefly say this.
I agree with him 100 per cent on the use of loan guarantees. Canadians are fed up with free money being given to companies. Let us not forget that a loan guarantee still does tie up government funding that cannot be used for other things. Briefly, I agree with him totally on the use of loan guarantees and we need more of it.
On the shipbuilding industry, I think the secret to having a level playing field is for our shipbuilding companies to learn to be competitive. If we have too many shipbuilding companies, that is tough. We are faced with a fact that globally there are not a lot of ships being built. It is not just in Canada. Globally there are not a lot of ships being built, be they large fishing vessels which I think is what he is referring to, or other kinds of large ships. The question is: How can the Canadian government and how can the Canadian economy best
October 24, 1991

cope with the inevitable downsizing in the shipbuilding industry that is going to take place?
I think where we can become competitive over the next few years is not so much in new shipbuilding, but in attracting, as the Shelburne shipyard has done recently, Russian shipping vessels or foreign vessels for repair and maintenance work.
I look forward to pursuing the subject with my hon. friend.


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, as has been stated before by many of my colleagues on this side of the House, we take no pleasure in speaking today in this debate. It seems that since 1988 we have had precious little economically or socially or constitutionally to brag about or be very positive about in this House of Commons.
I would just likely briefly refer to the previous speaker from South Shore. The reason we are having this debate today is because of the decrease in equalization payments to the Atlantic provinces. It is peculiar that the only Atlantic province that is receiving an increase in equalization payments this year is Nova Scotia, which means that basically Nova Scotia's economy has performed the worst over the past year.
If you listen to the member from South Shore you would think that because of the free trade agreement and everything else the economy in Nova Scotia was just booming. You would not really think he came from the same region as many of the previous speakers have come from and that is the Atlantic area. The figures show that he is definitely misleading or definitely giving the people of his province and the people of this House the wrong impression, that the economies of his riding and his province are doing well. Basically, the only reason his province is getting $1 million extra is because it has performed the worst of any province in Atlantic Canada.
Atlantic Canada is the region of the country that has by far the smallest population and within that region Prince Edward Island is by far the smallest province. Our small numbers and our limited resources and the seasonality of many of our industries make Atlantic Canada very vulnerable in these tough economic times, times of economic downturn.
Supply
One of the most distressing attitudes of this government is its obsession with the numbers game. If you do not have the numbers you just do not count. The human factor has been removed as a consideration when this government makes its decisions.
It is more interested in spending more millions of dollars trying to get credit for the few programs that remain in Atlantic Canada. For example in ACOA it spends millions of dollars in advertising and trying to take credit for itself for any programs that might be launched in the Atlantic area. It seems to put that emphasis on taking credit much more so than providing service to the region.
This government has become so bureaucratic and so legalistic in its approach that terms like compassion and social justice have disappeared from its vocabulary. They have been replaced with terms like cost recovery, bottom lines, user fees, rationalization and getting credit.
Many of our national institutions have been dismantled or are scheduled to be dismantled or are scheduled to be dismantled or have been privatized or scheduled to be privatized. We have a government that preaches national unity on the one hand and on the other it destroys the ties that have held this country together for well over 100 years.
In no place is this more true than in Atlantic Canada. Transportation, because of our location, is vital to our survival. It has been crippled by the policies of this government. It has become extremely difficult and extremely expensive for either people or goods to move within Atlantic Canada. It is also very difficult and very expensive to transport goods or people in or out of Atlantic Canada. The transportation problem alone puts us at a severe disadvantage.
When we combine it with other government policies in the region, we as Canadians are left to wonder about the real intentions and agenda of this government. We are left to wonder about the real effects of this government's decentralization policies. We are left to wonder about whether all Canadians are really equal in the eyes of this government. We are left to wonder if people are really a priority any more or are we being ruled by a corporate agenda.

Supply
This country has been in existence for over 123 years. In that time we have built a country that provides its residents with a standard of living, a quality of life that is the envy of the world. These standards and our quality of life are weakening rapidly. We have shown the world the benefits of unity. We, as Canadians, have reaped the benefits of unity. It is bitterly ironic that in the face of all of this we are now going through the worst unity crisis in our history.
It is a unity crisis that is sorely aggravated by our economic problems. Nowhere is this more true than in the Atlantic provinces. Our region is plagued by problems in every major economic sector; the fishery, agriculture, tourism. Atlantic governments have recognized how imperative it is that people who have common interests and common needs join together in common cause if they hope to make legitimate progress. They have made substantial moves toward economic unity and have plans to continue in this vein.
However, federal budgeting and legislative policies have made it very difficult for Atlantic governments to even maintain standards let alone improve them. A case in point is the recent federal decision to further reduce equalization payments by over $100 million.
While the press release issued by the premiers after their emergency meeting indicates they took the latest blow with some degree of equanimity, I must report that the people in my riding, and these are the only ones I have heard from to this point, are extremely concerned. They see a $50 million deficit for this province for this year. They know that this cannot continue and they know that something has to be done about it. They see more problems coming. There have to be cuts and the people know there have to be cuts.
The three main industries in my riding are fishing, agriculture, and tourism. The people in these industries have already been hammered by changes and difficulties beyond their control: the fishermen by changed carapace size, lower catches, and lower prices; the farmer by the potato virus and low beef and hog prices; the tourist operator by the GST inflated costs and a recession that has kept many tourists away. The effects of Bill C-21, changes to the UI Act, are starting to be felt. They fear more hard times are on the way and definitely they are right.
I want to emphasize that we are all aware of the hard times.
We are all aware of the deficit and we are all aware that we must do our share and we are willing to do our share. However, at this point we feel that a disproportionately high proportion of the burden has been shouldered by Atlantic Canada. We do not feel that we should be asked to carry more. Indications are, however, that this is exactly what is going to happen.
We were worried about the potential impact that constitutional change and the free trade agreement would have on programs such as health care. Now it looks like we will not have to wait for constitutional change as freezes and cutbacks are going to force changes right now.
People in my riding are looking at the health care system, medicare. Many are alarmed at what they see. We have already seen staff layoffs in hospitals. We have seen beds closed down. We have seen services curtailed. Now people see more of the same and these cuts are probably going to be permanent or are going to remain for quite a number of years.
People have reason to be concerned. They see this government cutting, cutting, cutting. They know that the capacity to deliver programs will be reduced because of these cuts. They know that people in our region will likely not be able to enjoy the same standard of health care as their fellow Canadians in more well-to-do provinces. For example, the Established Programs Financing program has been capped at 3 per cent. Health services in Prince Edward Island are increasing at the rate of 7 per cent which leaves a 4 per cent shortfall every year, year after year after year. How is Prince Edward Island going to be able to deliver the same level of services as British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario and Quebec?
Mr. Speaker, you have indicated that my time is almost up so thank you very much.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan -Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to pass up on the opportunity of asking the member a little question given that it is small business week. Although the debate does not specifically centre around that particular aspect of it, I think that when we talk about rural post offices, when we talk about fisheries and when we talk about railroads and we talk about cutbacks in transfer payments to our Atlantic provinces, we are talking about a broader
October 24, 1991

community than just those directly affected by these moves.
Specifically, I would suggest that through the cut in transfer payments to the Atlantic provinces, what we are doing is either cutting massively on services that will hurt our seniors and others, particularly lower and middle income earners, or we will have to see the increase in taxes in the area and taxes come out of the pockets of the middle class and the small business community.
My question to the hon. member is, given the fact of these cuts, given the fact of what will be looked at, does he have any suggestions to the people of Atlantic Canada, and certainly to those of us in the rest of Canada, who have already faced some of these cuts, as to what the small business community in his area will think of these cuts and how it will think of this particular government giving those cuts and what is going to happen to it in the future?


Joseph Blair (Joe) McGuire: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the hon. member, this is our second round of cuts. We have already gone through one round and this is our second kick at the cat in this regard. The less money that is in the province, the less money people have to spend and the less money will be spent in the small business sector of our province.
There is another thing I would like to mention that has been happening in Prince Edward Island, and I assume the same thing is happening in the member's own riding. The unemployment insurance program is a vital program for Atlantic Canada and especially Prince Edward Island where most of the main industries like tourism, agriculture and fisheries are seasonal industries and the majority of our work force is engaged in this three industries.
For the first time, with the fishing and tourism season being concluded, we see people going in to apply for unemployment insurance and they are faced with this particular questionnaire. It is called the insurable employment questionnaire. It says: "Complete and return with your application". The first question on this paper is: "Are you related to any of your employers by blood, marriage, including common law or adoption?" Then they go on to ask: "Do you have a controlling interest in any of the companies in which you have worked" and "are you involved in any business relationship with the employer?"
Supply
In areas of a small province such as Egmont in western Prince Edward Island, and especially in the fishing industry, very many of the employer and employees are related. It seems as if it is almost a crime to work for someone who happens to be your third, fourth or fifth cousin. It seems to be a crime to work even if your wife has a business and you as her husband are working in that particular business. This was never a problem in the past. In fact most of the recent court rulings have said there is absolutely nothing wrong with this particular employee and employer relationship.
If the applicant checks the "yes" block, then his form has to go to Revenue Canada and this tacks two, three or four weeks on to their waiting period. Instead of waiting for four weeks to have a claim processed to get money, which will then be circulated in the community, they have to wait almost two months.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak on this motion today. As my colleague from Egmont has said, we in Atlantic Canada do not get a great deal of pleasure in speaking on this particular subject. It indicates that the people in our area are not as successful as we would like and that we have economic difficulties which we want to improve upon.
We have a very difficult economic situation in Atlantic Canada. I would like to say that we in the opposition are working hand in hand with the government to try to find these answers. But that is not the case. The government maintains that everything is going well in Atlantic Canada. It has backed away from the problems that Atlantic Canadians are experiencing at the present time.
This motion talks about three areas in particular which are fundamental to the problems in Atlantic Canada. They are not the only problems. If we were to list every problem we would not have time for the debate. It would take from now until Christmas to debate the inconsiderate attitude of this government toward Atlantic Canada.
I think my colleagues have stated quite well the problems that exist, particularly the questions on fisheries, equalization and transfer payments. These are problems that the government just will not change its course on. The fishery is just devastated. There are no groundfish available to catch and, if there are, they are

Supply
not coming in to where the inshore fishermen can get them. Yet our government, in its interest to please the foreign jurisdictions, to be buddies with the European Common Market and other nations, is giving these countries increased quotas at the expense of our own fishermen.
One would think that in an area where there is economic difficulty the government would go out of its way to try to promote an industry that can create employment. Instead it is going the other way. It is going out of its way to take jobs away from the fishery in Atlantic Canada to give them to other countries.
One cannot help but agree with Atlantic Canadians when they ask: "Whose side is the federal government really on?" It is a natural response.
The question of the railway is really a most incredible thing that we are contemplating and experiencing in Atlantic Canada right now.
The government wants to sell a main line from Truro to Sydney. Now this main line has been there since the 1860s. It is vital to the economy of Cape Breton Island in particular because Cape Breton Island is probably one of the areas which has the most economic difficulties right now. It depends on a struggling coal industry and a struggling steel industry.
When you are transporting coal and steel you use a train because you are shipping to thermal generating plants in Nova Scotia. When you are shipping steel you ship by train. Here is CN which uses the product that Sydney Steel is producing, going to sell the railway and take the chance that the railway will close entirely. Then it would not be able to purchase the steel that the steel plant makes because the it could not be transported on the line.
Now certainly you can transport by ship but you can only unload that rail at certain destinations. You have to be able to ship the rails by rail. Yet the CN is saying no. Of course what it wants to do is sell it to a short line operation. It cannot abandon it because it would have to go before the National Transportation Association and that would not be allowed. It wants to do what it has done with Route Canada. It wants to sell it to a short line
operation and get away from all of the federal restrictions that would be required if that short line operation went bankrupt. It would not have anything more to do with it, as it did with Route Canada. It would simply say it sold the railroad. It would have no further responsibility.
If the company which bought it went into bankruptcy it would say that it looked like a good idea at the time to sell it to them. It would say that it screened them, they were gold plated, they were this, they were that, but they still went bankrupt. And there would be nothing anyone could do. Once again transportation interests in this country would be sold out. I mean it is absolutely disgraceful.
The government is saying that a short line operation is the way to go. A short line operation can really work. But what it is not telling the people is that CN plans to intermodal from Moncton eventually, to take the railroad to Moncton and from Moncton to transport by truck. A short line operation, operating between Truro and Sydney, would be competing with CN's own trucking operation. Now that is absolutely incredible, and they expect people to believe this.
In addition to this we know that Canadian National is actually de-marketing its own operation. It is discouraging people from using the rail service. What it hopes by that is that the bottom line will look so bad it will prove to be the justification for selling the railroad.
Even with this de-marketing of its operation it still makes a profit. No matter how hard CN tries to discourage would-be users of the railroad, it is still making a profit. Now can you imagine a Crown corporation doing this in Canada? Can you imagine a government allowing this Crown corporation to do this in Canada? I mean it is absolutely incredible that this is what is going on at the present time.
It is no wonder that people in eastern Nova Scotia and Cape Breton Island are absolutely furious. They feel they have been absolutely abandoned by the federal government.
Generally in this country steel is in difficult shape. We just heard one of the senior officers of Stelco tell us that in the last year it has lost 500,000 tonnes in its Canadian market. Four per cent of its steel has been lost because of companies either moving to the United States or going bankrupt.
October 24, 1991

In Sydney we have a rail producer. We thought that if the free trade agreement would be of some benefit then it would be a benefit to Sydney Steel because it operates in a tidewater operation. It can sell rails and land them in the northeastern United States more cheaply than the steel can be brought from the mid-United States to that area of that country.
Yet what happens is that we are countervailed. The Sydney Steel plant is countervailed against, 120 per cent. Of course it cannot compete, but why did that happen? The government decided in its haste to have a free trade agreement not actually to come to terms with the definition of subsidy.
The problem of course is that it is open. The United States has used its own definition of a subsidy to serve its own interests. The agreement said that the definition would be provided in seven years. Now that has changed because Canada and the United States have said they want to wait until the GATT defines what a subsidy is.
We are constantly left to spin in the air. More and more the government has said: "This is a small part of Canada, four provinces with only 32 seats. It does not figure in our plans to try to get re-elected. It does not figure in our plans of what this country is all about". I think this is a tragedy.
We are talking about renewal of this country, yet at the same time we are abandoning four of our ten provinces. If this is what this government means by "Canada" then certainly it is completely at cross-purposes with what this country means to Atlantic Canadians.
Atlantic Canadians see themselves not as second level Canadians but on the same level as all Canadians.
This is only fair in this country. This is what we have promoted. This is the greatest country in the world yet we are choosing who are going to be successful and who are not. There have been some very stupid programs, but that stupidity should not mean that the government will try once and that is the end of its attempt.
I would ask this government to reassess its policy and treat Atlantic Canadians as being equal to the rest of Canada. It must recognize that Atlantic Canadians need the support of this government. They do not need the government working against them.
Supply


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I want to agree with the comments my hon. colleague from Cape Breton-The Sydneys has made.
Although I represent the great city of Dartmouth on the mainland of Nova Scotia, I cannot deny my roots as a Cape Bretonner.
It was the influence of the member from Sydney that is partially responsible for my being here. He is exactly the type of member of Parliament that I would aspire to be. He is an individual who went into politics for the right reason, and that reason was to try at the national level to ensure that those people who gave him the privilege of representing him in the Parliament of Canada were well served and that their needs and desires were put clearly in the House of Commons.
Those needs and desires are not that different from those of the people who live next door to them on mainland Nova Scotia or in the city of Dartmouth or anywhere in rural Canada, indeed anywhere in Canada.
The member takes his job very seriously. He is one of the few who are not given to flights of rhetoric in this House. He speaks very seriously about the issues at hand and I want to get his perspective. He has represented the good people in Cape Breton-The Sydneys for quite a number of years. It must make him feel somewhat bad as a long-standing member of Parliament to be at this point in his career where we still need to have debates in the House of Commons about equality and fairness for all Canadians no matter where they live.
I want to get his opinion on the policies of this government, not just in transportation but in every aspect of its economic policy. Has this government done anything since 1988 that would make people in that great island of Cape Breton or anywhere else in Nova Scotia feel more of a Canadian or less of a Canadian? I happen to believe that what it has done is systematically, through its economic policy, dismantle this once great nation.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague from Dartmouth for his kind remarks. He has hit upon what I think is a very sensitive issue. When one chooses to be a member of Parliament he hopes to be able to make a difference. He hopes to be able to influence things for his riding that will improve the state of the people in that riding. It is very difficult for me to sit here in this House of Commons and watch

October 24, 1991
Supply
the government systematically dismantle our social programs, our regional development programs, and to categorically turn away from people in Atlantic Canada, particularly Cape Breton Island. That is not an accident. They have just chosen to do that as a priority. It is an insensitivity that I just cannot understand. As a Canadian I feel very, very betrayed by this, and as a parliamentarian this sense of betrayal is even greater.
I would like to say that the people in Cape Breton Island are as strong Canadians as any group in this great country. They fought bravely during the two world wars and the Korean conflict, they have flown the flag with pride, at every opportunity they choose at their own volition to demonstrate their love for their country. One looks at them and says these are true Canadians because their government is not doing anything for them. Yet in spite of the arbitrary and derogatory treatment they are receiving, they remain great Canadians and proud Canadians.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to take part in the debate today on this very, very important motion. With regard to the member who just spoke, although we are on different sides of the House, I think we have a great deal in common. I start out by saying that for a particular reason.
Today I met with a minister from the Atlantic Baptist Federation. He is meeting with various members of Parliament, parliamentarians on all sides of the House. It was very refreshing. I met with him just minutes before Question Period and we spent I guess 15 or 20 minutes together. It was very refreshing because as a minister and as a concerned citizen, and as a church, they want to know what they can do for individual members of Parliament and what they can do for Canada as a country in the next coming months. They are no different than any other church or any other denomination, but I think it was very refreshing to see this individual and his people visit Parliament and take an active role in what we are doing here and maybe how they can help us.
That is sort of the theme of today's debate. What can we do to improve the situation that we presently have,
and I wanted to say presently enjoy in Atlantic Canada but I don't think we can take too much enjoyment in it.
To go back to some of the remarks made by the previous member, he mentioned that the government would have Canadians believe that everything is going well in Atlantic Canada. That is simply not the case. The government clearly recognizes that we have huge problems in Atlantic Canada. Some of those problems have been with us since Confederation, there is no question about that. It is a reality that we may have attempted to ignore in past years, but this government certainly is not ignoring that.
What we are talking about here are transfers of federal dollars, just so the people back home will know. It is a transfer of federal dollars from within this Confederation back to the poorer regions of this country. What it simply means again is it is taking moneys from other provinces and putting it into some of the have not provinces of this Confederation.
In the last year or so none of us questioned that we have gone through a very difficult economic climate. We are in a recession. The government clearly has admitted that. But the problem that that creates for Atlantic Canada is that the provinces that usually have the economic clout, the money, to put into some of these poorer regions simply do not have it. If you take a very close look at where those federal dollars have come from in the last number of years, it basically boils down to three provinces. Moneys are being transferred to the poorer regions of this country from provinces like Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. That has been the story of this Confederation in regard to equalization payments, those transfers to the poorer provinces, so that the poorer provinces can distribute the kinds of services and programs to their people as the rich provinces can do.
Part of the reality is that these provinces have had a huge slowdown in their economies. The province of Ontario, for example, has had a huge slowdown. B.C. has experienced the same thing and so has Alberta. That is why the transfers to provinces like my province are being reduced. It is not as if we are out to punish the provinces, but we simply have to work by a formula that was established long before most of us arrived here in this House.
October 24, 1991

During good times that formula works to our advantage and during bad times we have to live with the results. I do not like living with those results. That means people in my own neighbourhood in my constituency are going to suffer. That is the difficulty with the formula. It can work for you and it can work against you.
Again, going back to the reality of the whole equation, the reality that we are faced with is we are going through some very difficult times. The opposition would like us to think or would like the Canadian people to believe that we are isolated from the rest of the world, that we are the only country going through this very difficult period. Believe me, we are not. We cannot take much satisfaction in that, but we are not the only country in the world going through this recessionary period. The unfortunate part of it is of course that we have to suffer the results of that in our own neighbourhoods.
One of the things that I want to mention, especially in light of the debate that we are hearing across this country at this very moment, the unity debate, the constitutional debate, a part of that I think is going to bring the kinds of answers or the resolution to the problem that we are suffering in Atlantic Canada. As I mentioned earlier, the have not status of Atlantic Canada is not new to us. We have experienced that since Confederation. Also since Confederation we have worked with an outdated Constitution. We have worked with an outdated means of dealing with the realities in today's marketplace.
One of the things that excites me about our economic constitutional proposal is the fact that for the first time we are taking a serious look at dismantling some of those 500 interprovincial trade barriers that have restricted the development of provinces such as mine.
We can point to the present way we do business in Atlantic Canada and see some monumental flaws in it. All of us can, both sides of this House. The difficulty is we could never agree on how we were going to resolve some of those or whether in fact there was the political will to resolve some of those structural difficulties in Atlantic Canada.
For the first time we are taking a very serious look at it, a very reflective look at it. Some of the premiers who have staked out these protected positions on their sort of individual fiefdoms are now taking a very serious look at
Supply
dismantling some of those barriers that have restricted our ability to move along with the rest of Canada.
The economists are telling us that in all parts of Canada on average it is costing a family of four $1,000 in some of the inefficiencies built into the Canadian economy presently. Some have even extended that figure upward to $2,500. Whether it is $1,000 or it is $2,500 it is costing us something. We have to move beyond that.
It is refreshing to know that Canada does want to move beyond that. We want to bring ourselves into the 21st century in a way that we can all be very proud. We are going to have to do that by hard work and dealing with some of those structural inefficiencies that we have lived with for the last 125 years.
The various economists have various ideas. I guess you would get as many ideas as to how we can improve the lot in Atlantic Canada as you have economists. In fact, you have heard that expression, Mr. Speaker, if you had three economists in the same room you would come up with four different points of view because at the end of the day one of them would sure enough disagree with himself if he talked long enough.
One of the articles that I would like to bring to the attention of the House is an article by John Odenthal. Mr. Odenthal is an economic researcher with the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council which is based, as many of us know, in Halifax. The timing of this article is very refreshing. It is an article from the Commercial News of September 1991. It is only a month or so old. He is saying that many Atlantic Canadians seem to think that if the country were to split up, they would live and work pretty much as they always have. He goes on to quote some statistics here:
According to a recent survey commissioned by the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, fully 57 per cent of Nova Scotians, New Brunswickers, Prince Edward Islanders and Newfoundlanders believe in their immutable economic future.
He goes on to say:
Well, it's time for that 57 per cent to yank their heads out of the sand. Whatever becomes of Canada, the economic status of the Atlantic Provinces is not going to remain constant over the next few years.

October 24, 1991
Supply
He goes on to mention equalization payments. The statistics are almost alarming. We mentioned the net reduction in transfers to the provinces and again none of us on either side of this House want to see this happen, but it is a reality that we cannot ignore, but one of the startling figures that he brings out is that these transfer payments compose 39 per cent to 46 per cent of the provincial revenues in the respective provinces of Atlantic Canada.
What he is telling us, and most of us in this House know that anyway, but it is just to remind ourselves more than anything else, is that when you have an area of the country that depends on almost 50 per cent of their income from the rest of Canada, it tells you that there is a big, big problem.
I went through some of the structural changes that have to occur in Atlantic Canada and we have mentioned them, but this situation cannot continue. That is why I am really pleased with some of the initiatives that the federal government has taken to come to grips with this recurring problem, this problem that we have had since Confederation. For example, despite what we may think of it on an individual basis, the free trade agreement that will allow us to access that huge American market which is geographically next door, in my riding within six hours you can be within selling distance of 20 million to 50 million people. It is six to eight hours depending on what direction you are travelling. But there are all kinds of possibilities there for us.
We have got to get there on our own. We cannot continually look for other parts of Canada to prop up Atlantic Canada. We are going to need it. The difficulty that I see, of course, is getting from here to there. We know where we want to be and we are going to have to get some help to get there, but we are getting some of that help and I do not think we can ignore that.
Canadians have borne the burden well if you want to look at it in that sense; in other words, the have provinces to the have not provinces. It is a remarkable thing about this Confederation of ours that we have been able to do it. There are not too many Confederations in this world that will do it as well as we have in Canada. Can you imagine 50 cents out of every $1 spent in
Atlantic Canada by the governments of Atlantic Canada are coming from the pockets of other Canadians and other provinces. That tells me that our Confederation has worked darn well for Atlantic Canada. We have obviously got to do more and we are going to do more because we are going to work through this problem together and we are not going to do it by simply criticising. I think the days of criticising are over.
It is very, very refreshing to note that when the loss, if you want put it that way, in those transfer payments to Atlantic Canada was announced, the premiers of Atlantic Canada did not jump up and down and pull their hair out by the roots and scream and holler and point fingers at Ottawa. It is very refreshing to note that they took a very balanced, reflective approach to the problem.
Two years ago that would not have happened. Two years ago they would not have done that. They would have been in front of the television cameras screaming and hollering at the reduction in transfer payments. That sense of reality is coming through. That sense of reality is best expressed by Premier Clyde Wells, and I quote from The Montreal Gazette, today's edition: "We have to bear in mind the whole nation has a problem". He is looking at a confederated Canada, a full Canada in which we work together on common problems.
It is very refreshing to note Mr. Wells' position in regard to our latest constitutional initiative. He knows that if this country is going to work, we have to work together to solve our problems. We do not do it by fighting.
He also goes on to say: "But we want to make sure that the reduction in federal transfers is done in such a way that it does not unfairly burden the poorer provinces like the Atlantic Provinces". I agree fully. As long as we all share part of the cost, we will do it ungrudgingly because we will all bear part of the burden for keeping this thing together, working together to get through our difficulties.
The premier of New Brunswick has basically stated the same thing. Mr. McKenna has stated that he is not happy with it. One of the things he is clearly unhappy with is the fact that the better you do in terms of dealing with some of the difficulties in your economy, the worse you are treated at the end of the day in relation to the
October 24, 1991

present formula we have to work under. That is clearly one of the difficulties. The premier recognizes that.
The premier of New Brunswick is now saying to us, to the federal ministers, the Prime Minister: "We will accept part of the burden. We will accept part of the cost, but let us consult a little bit more on what happens in Atlantic Canada and maybe on where some of those federal monies are going to be spent or how they might be best spent".
Again, it leads me full circle back to our constitutional proposal. It is clearly underlined in that proposal that Ottawa cannot do it alone, that we need to have some help in this thing and the help will come from the 10 provinces with which we will consult. We will work together to work through our economic difficulties. When the day comes to deliver a budget in the House of Commons, it will not be shrouded in the kind of secrecy in which it has been shrouded in the past. We will go through that consultative process so at the end of the day the finance minister in the province of New Brunswick knows what we are doing; the finance minister in the province of Ontario has a sense of where we are going.
We have all criticized in this House the finance minister of the New Democratic government in Ontario.


An hon. member:: Not all of us.


Gregory Francis Thompson: The hon. member, a member of that party says "not all of us have criticized". I have not criticized him either. He was doing what he thought was right. He was elected to do that. At the end of the day we may disagree, but he was doing what he was elected to do.
If you reflect on the situation in Ontario, despite the party that has formed the government in that province, today it is going through the same kind of difficulties that we are nationally, federally. It is cutting it back. Maybe if it had to do it over again, it would not have gone on a borrowing spree as it had to in the spring of 1991. Maybe it would have pared it back then. It is recognizing that there are some structural deficiencies in the economy of Ontario and it is going through a very, very difficult period. It is going through that same process we have had to go through here for the last two or three years.


An hon. member:: There is going to be less money for transfer payments to Atlantic Canada.


Gregory Francis Thompson: The member said it. There is going to be less money for transfer payments to Atlantic Canada.
I hope there is. I hope the economy in Atlantic Canada is
Supply
so vibrant that we do not need those transfer of payments.
That is where we want to lead ourselves in Atlantic Canada to work through this thing. We are going to need the help of the rest of Canada for a few more years to come and some of the structural changes that we are proposing to the economy and some we have already carried out are going to help us in the long run.
I am a little bit uncomfortable in the short term because there are industries in my riding that are suffering as there are in all parts of this country, but it is not because we have ignored them. It is a problem of money. There is not enough of it to go around and I wish there were more, but there is not.
We are going to work through it together in the spirit of a true confederation, the kind of Canada that we all want.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's remarks in the House and he was speaking about the idea of breaking down provincial trade barriers. I want to suggest to him what would happen if we in effect removed the protection that we have for small industries located in Atlantic Canada. Let us use breweries for example. The great cry has been to allow Moosehead to be sold throughout the rest of Canada.
Is there not a danger that once that protection is removed and the transportation component, the high cost of transportation in this country is invoked, those Moosehead jobs or those of any other small manufacturing jobs in Atlantic Canada or in other regions will relocate to Toronto, and that Labatt's will buy the licence, add another shift of three or four people and match the output? Is that not the danger of arbitrarily removing the provincial barriers? Is it also not a danger of big companies from the golden horseshoe, from Quebec, getting the contracts to build whatever in Atlantic Canada and bringing their own workers with them?


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, we are running out of time. I would love to have a few minutes anyway to attempt to answer that question, but I see we have one minute left.

October 24, 1991
Private Members' Business
That is a valid point and to respond to that I would simply have to say that transportation is only one component within many components or elements that determine the price of a product. I think the belief and the understanding is, and I buy into this philosophy, that any time a smaller economy has the opportunity to sell into a larger economy that smaller economy at the end of the day is the winner. I believe that our competitive position in New Brunswick will be enhanced by that arrangement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: It being six o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 81(17), proceedings on the motion have expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Chris Axworthy: that Bill C-261, an act to legalize the administration of euthanasia under certain conditions to persons who request it and who are suffering from an irremediable condition and respecting the withholding and cessation of treatment and to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee G.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to participate in further debate about the desirability of legalizing euthanasia in Canada, a position which is supported by some 80 per cent of Canadians in circumstances in which persons who suffer from an irremediable condition, an irreversible medical condition, and who request their life to end be permitted to do so, and to protect physicians who assist in that process.
If I can begin with a little background dealing with health and quality of life.
The World Health Organization, as we all know, utilizes an holistic definition of health which includes spiritual, emotional, family, environmental and physical aspects. Not only is our society's concept of health changing, but patient expectations of the health care system and its professionals are changing.
Many patients refuse to accept the simple reassurance that the doctor knows best. They are no longer content to be passive recipients of medical magic and in ever increasing numbers individuals are demanding to be active, informed and in part participants during the process of utilizing the health care system.
Whereas in the past the basic expectation of physicians was simply to extend life, Canadians now are looking for improvements to their lives, which most of us can safely assume will be long. We want not only to live to a ripe old age, we want to be healthy, free oi ailments which could impede our ability to enjoy life to the fullest. Because each person's idea of a fulfilled life is unique, society has begun to assert its desire that the health care system be responsive to individual needs and desires.
All this is happening when, through modem medical technology, past fatal diseases have become conquerable. Unfortunately, such medical advances have led to the situation in which perhaps almost 75 per cent of us will die as a result of some chronic, degenerative disease such as cancer or heart ailments or strokes. Today's lethal diseases often cause us to suffer lingering and painful deaths.
On occasion the practice of medicine gives rise to conflicts between healing, preserving life, alleviating suffering and administering comfort. For some preserving life means more suffering.
With all of these changes, the evolving holistic concept of health, increasing patient participation, ever-advancing medical technology, it has become more difficult to define health just in terms of life alone.
Today it is possible for individuals to have life without enjoying any of the characteristics of health. The issue of quality surely must enter into any consideration of life and/or health. A better quality of life is only one-half the problem. People also deserve a better quality of
|
tYv-'^fr "'T:
October 24, 1991

death. Consideration of this flip side, the quality of death, gives rise to our discussion of euthanasia.
I think most Canadians think that we as a society need to seriously consider the legalization of euthanasia, and such consideration, as I said, has become unavoidable because of the accomplishments of medical science.
What is euthanasia? The meaning of the word is "good death." However, the meaning has become much more complex. The Ontario Medical Association, for example, has defined euthanasia as being an act of actively assisting to die the patient who has requested that his or her death be hastened. This definition perhaps provides no hint to the emotionally charged nature of this morally frustrating, ethically confusing issue which demands our attention.
Perhaps a better definition is one which defines euthanasia as signifying the termination of life when the quality of life as defined by the patient has degenerated to the point of meaninglessness, when the illness has reached a stage beyond the help of any physician.
A distinction is often drawn between passive and active euthanasia, with passive euthanasia being acceptable while active euthanasia is not.
This argument holds that passive euthanasia, allowing individuals to die by withholding or ceasing comprehensive medical treatment, is not the same as active euthanasia, some positive act which leads to death, such as the administration of a lethal dose of a drug.
In short, the argument asserts that somehow the latter is killing while the former is not. I think really there is no distinction morally between passive and active euthanasia, since the intention is the same.
There is another important question to be asked: is there a moral difference between physicians who assist patients in dying through their purposeful decision of non-action and physicians who assist patients in dying by administering a lethal dose of medication? Again I say that for physicians, the answer must be no, provided that either scenario takes place in accordance with the expressed wishes of the patient.
The issue of significance is whether the circumstances of euthanasia are voluntary or involuntary. We are limiting our discussion to voluntary euthanasia. It seems to me that voluntary euthanasia rests on a fundamental
Private Members' Business
human right, the right to die if death is the only release from suffering.
Surely the right to choose to die is a very important demonstration of individual freedom, but no individual has the right to advocate it for another. Clearly voluntary euthanasia is not killing. It is physician aid in dying. Involuntary euthanasia on the other hand is in no uncertain terms murder.
When I state that I support the legalization of euthanasia, I am saying that a patient who is fully cognizant of all the facts regarding his or her diagnosis and prognosis should be able to request the aid of a physician in achieving his or her own death should they so choose. That is the first point of Bill C-261, that a person should have the right to make this choice in circumstances of an irreversible medical condition.
My second point is with regard to protecting physicians who assist. The law should be changed so as to permit physicians to fulfil such requests of their patients. In Canada we saw the partial acknowledgement of each individual's right to determine the circumstances of their own death when the act of suicide was decriminalized.
By not decriminalizing aiding and abetting suicide, we are preventing some members of our society from exercising this right and instead are sentencing them to lingering, painful deaths. The right to control one's own dying process, to die with dignity, needs to be accepted in our legal system and physicians who assist patients' wishes need to be free from any fear of criminal responsibility.
Should euthanasia become legalized in this country, clearly relevant laws must be carefully constructed. The rights of all individuals need to be enshrined within such legislation and the legislation must guarantee the freedom of choice to every Canadian. It must grant those with irreversible medical conditions the right to die with dignity and it must also provide medical professionals with the right to choose not to participate.
The key concept here, it seems to me, is choice. By legalizing euthanasia within clearly defined guidelines, all Canadians can be provided with the opportunity to choose euthanasia or not. By not legalizing it, many Canadians will be forced into the only option available, one which otherwise they would not choose.

Private Members' Business
Those who are opposed to legalization of euthanasia deny others the freedom of choice. Pieter Admiraal, a physician in the Netherlands and some like-minded colleagues summed up this discussion nicely when they explained that not everyone would choose euthanasia. There are those who would prefer to fight for life in the midst of pain up to their last breath. This is their right but we should all have the power to choose.
In the debate regarding euthanasia it has been accurately observed that to err on the side of life is to not fully understand that for some patients life in any meaningful sense is already over. Is this the sort of error that a society which truly values life would make?
The argument rooted in the moral issue of the sanctity of life is one of the most common barriers directed in opposite to euthanasia. We are encouraged by those who hold this point of view to consider the rightness or wrongness of allowing doctors to assist patients in their death upon their request, the rightness of taking life with the permission of the person involved.
It is also important to consider the flip side of this argument. Is it right to deny members of our society who have irreversible medical conditions an escape from the suffering they experience? Is it possible to profess a respect for life when we have little or no concern for those whom we force to endure it against their wishes. Certainly if as a society we want to preserve the moral value of the sanctity of life, we need to be clear about what is sacred about life. Is it biological existence of some measure of quality?
If we as members of the Canadian community truly possess a sincere respect for life we should accept that the meaning of life is defined in most personal terms by each individual that some will define their own life in terms of quality and others in terms of basic existence.
Should we not accept that through our own personal definitions of life some of us will support euthanasia and others will oppose it? Would not a genuine respect for life dictate that neither is more right than the other? If we do not want to violate the sanctity of life then I believe we are required to respect each individual's interpretation of life's meaning and accept that this will necessitate the availability of euthanasia within our health care system.
Another argument in opposition to legalization of euthanasia is rooted primarily in religion. Some put forth the argument that only God gives life and only God can take it away and thus euthanasia should be opposed. Can the medical technology of today which can keep the body's vital processes functioning for an indeterminate amount of time be described by those with this perspective in any other way than the moral intervention in this divine plan? Surely, though, those that take this view should not force their views and values on others who do not share them. Physicians are increasingly exercising their power to determine life and death in our own health care system.
Clearly physician aid in dying is occurring presently but without standardized regulations or safeguards. It is this ad hoc approach it seems to me that should be feared, not the legalization and regulation of euthanasia. The concern expressed that legalized voluntary euthanasia would lead to involuntary euthanasia is not warranted if the legislation is carefully developed and crafted.
One of the many arguments employed in opposition to any consideration of the legalization of euthanasia is that such a move would subvert the role of the physician. Those who make this assertion typically ground their argument in the Hippocratic oath. They refer to the part of this historic document which commits physicians to the role of healer and insists that this prohibits them from ending life. They suggest that the legalization of euthanasia could serve to relieve physicians of their pledged obligation to preserving life, and not only would the public confidence and trust in the profession be undermined but patients' lives would be at risk also.
I find it impossible to believe that the only thing that has prevented patients from being killed by their physicians is their pledge to the Hippocratic oath. Surely physicians, like most other members of society, are influenced by existing moral and societal values, which prohibit murder, and they are also influenced of course by their code of ethics and conduct.
Now, understandably, the initial purpose of the oath was to establish the medical profession as valuing life. However, it was created prior to any possible conception of what health care would become today and it was created in the absence of any real ability to prolong life in the fact of death. Times have changed drastically in
October 24, 1991

this regard and I think we need to address these concerns in a different and more humane way.
When emotional and spiritual health are assigned similar status to physical health, the physician's commitment to the role of healer could not be interpreted as a prohibition from allowing death to occur if its purpose is for the relief of suffering. It has been suggested that doctors have to realize that in certain circumstances assistance in dying is a form of medical treatment. It is another way of relieving suffering.
On the subject of pain and suffering, in particular, one writer wrote: "Many people are in favour of the introduction of euthanasia for release from unbearable, painful or undignified existence, and far from resulting in an attitude that would undermine the foundation of society, euthanasia would be seen as an expression of the realization of the limits of human endurance and as an acknowledgement of the duty of care."
It is worth remembering when dealing with physical pain that not all physical pain can be relieved through the appropriate use of pain suppressing drugs. Most can, but not all can. For example, of patients suffering terminal forms of cancer about three per cent will experience pain which is medically untreatable. Some studies in the area of palliative care indicate that we have seriously underestimated the kind of suffering that does exist.
It also needs to be recognized that suffering can take many forms beyond physical and terminal manifestations. If we accept the holistic view of health that I discussed earlier so as to include emotional aspects, we are challenged to address the pain and suffering experienced at this level also.
I use the term irremediable or irreversible medical condition purposefully, because I believe that the various manifestations of pain and suffering are not exclusive to terminal illness. Alzheimer's disease is a useful example in this regard. It is not a terminal condition, yet some of the people faced with this diagnosis experience serious emotional suffering. They fear living a life completely devoid of dignity due to the symptoms characteristic of the advanced stages of the illness. Can any medical professional claim the ability to understand, never mind the ability to treat, the emotional pain and suffering of
Private Members' Business
an individual whose life has been completely altered due to a health problem such as Alzheimer's disease is?
The urge to avoid, or worse yet deny, the emotional experience of pain and suffering endured by those with irreversible medical conditions is part and parcel of our society's inability to face and accept death as being part of life. Our society has been accurately described as one which exalts the young and the healthy. But as a society we need to understand and accept that for each of us there comes a time when death is no longer the enemy. It is our challenge, I think, to allow others to die when they are ready and not to impose our own desires upon their personal decisions. We need to discuss the taboo subject of death openly with our doctors, family and friends, and the debate regarding euthanasia is a part of this.
In closing, I would like to emphasize that this consideration of each individual's right to die with dignity, the right to choose euthanasia, is not some esoteric academic debate taking place within the margins of Canadian society; conversely, the majority of Canadians are seriously contemplating this issue and are in favour of its legalization. Indeed, in a Gallup poll in 1990 that survey found that 78 per cent of Canadians believe that the doctor should be allowed by law to end the life of a patient if there is an incurable disease that causes great suffering, if the patient has made a formal request in writing.
A study conducted by Dr. Molloy of McMaster University of 1,500 physicians found that 90 per cent of doctors felt that patient desires were important in life and death treatment situations.
With a majority of average Canadians in favour of euthanasia and a significant majority of the physicians believing that patient desires are important in the consideration of life extending treatment options, is it not about time that euthanasia became a health care option.
When a large number of physicians are willing to risk legal repercussions in order to practice in accordance with their patient's wishes and when we as health care consumers are increasingly demanding such personalized delivery of service, is it not time also to legalize euthanasia?

October 24, 1991
Private Members' Business
Now that we have medical technology that is capable of sustaining existence far beyond the point where all else that gives value to life has departed, is it not time that we legally sanctioned each individual's right to die with dignity?
I believe that that time has arrived. This bill and the suggestion that euthanasia be legalized at their core provide for two things: first, the choice for Canadians living under intolerable, to them, health conditions involving suffering and loss of dignity with no hope of relief and being able to make a choice to die. In other words, it is people having the opportunity and the right to decide when their medical condition is irreversible and intolerable to them to end their life. The second thing is for physicians who assist in carrying out their patient's wishes to be protected from criminal penalty.
In closing, surely as a society we are compassionate, tolerant and caring enough to provide for this choice and this protection.


Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to discuss further Bill C-261, which would become the euthanasia and cessation of treatment act.
I commend the hon. member for bringing this forward for discussion, however, in my view this bill is inappropriate as I will try to show.
The difficult question of euthanasia deserves more careful attention than this bill has to offer. With advances in medicine, people are living longer and the number of those suffering from life threatening diseases such as cancer is increasing, as is the number of those with symptoms of Alzheimer's and other degenerative diseases which destroy the mind.
Medical technology now makes it possible to preserve life long after the person is able to function as a sentient being. With the spread of AIDS, many young persons, even babies, face the prospect of early disabling terminal illnesses. All these things have resulted in continued demands by concerned individuals and associations for the decriminalization of voluntary active euthanasia and counselling, aiding or abetting suicide.
At the same time, there is another group of concerns which cannot be left unattended if euthanasia is to be regulated. One is that many doctors will insist on
attempting to treat for some time after there is no more hope of preserving or restoring any meaningful life.
In other words, many practitioners feel it is their duty to treat the terminally ill until the very last moment. The issue therefore becomes at what point should treatment cease and the person be allowed to die. There is also the concern that adequate palliative care for terminally ill persons may not be provided because of doctors' fears that administering enough of a drug to relieve pain may result in the death of the patient who has not yet decided or is not capable of deciding whether he or she wishes to die or live.
It can be misleading to confuse voluntary euthanasia with this group of concerns, although they are obviously linked to each other if only because they deal with ways to terminate life.
In my view, one cannot dissociate these concerns. Bill C-261 addresses to some extent these by adding sections having to do with the withholding and cessation of treatment. Unfortunately Bill C-261 does not differentiate between the two types of activities, leaving the issues more confused than before.
Clauses 16 and 17 of Bill C-261 seem to attempt to regulate the following: One, cessation of treatment where treatment is therapeutically useless; two, respect for the decision of a competent adult to refuse treatment; and three, causing death as a result of administering an appropriate amount of a drug to relieve pain of a terminal patient.
These activities do not by themselves entail criminal responsibility because they do not involve intentional killing. Instead, they raise the following types of problems, and I would like to go through this list:
1.	How to give legislative recognition to an individual's wish to be allowed to die with dignity;
2.	What constitutes treatment, that is, does the right to cease treatment include the right to withdraw nourishment;
3.	Whether there are any public policy limits on the autonomy of adults;
4.	Determining whether a comatose patient would want to have his or her pain alleviated even at the risk of death;
a


October 24, 1991

5.	In what circumstances should the patient's agreement be necessary;
6.	Whether third parties can provide valid agreement in circumstances in which the patient is incapable of providing it; and
7.	Whether children can provide valid agreement, and whether there are any public policy limits on the autonomy of children.
While the latter part of this bill, and particularly sections 16 and 17, also purport to deal with these matters, I do not intend at this time to discuss them or the issues they raise because they are similar to the provisions of Bill C-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code, which will be known as the terminally ill persons act, and they will be discussed by others in the committee hearings on Bill C-203.1 would just point out that these fundamental issues are not addressed by the provisions in the latter part of this bill.
I am here more concerned with the voluntary euthanasia provisions of this bill, and in this connection some background information may be useful. The bill is remarkably similar to the voluntary euthanasia legislation bill which was debated in the English House of Lords in December 1936 when second reading was moved and lost. This bill had been introduced in the House of Lords, it had never been debated in the House of Commons. The bill has been briefly summed up as follows: "The English Bill of 1936 requires that the patient shall be twenty-one years old (the age of majority at that time), of sound mind, and suffering from a fatal and incurable disease, accompanied by severe pain. A formal application is to be signed by the patient in the presence of two witnesses and submitted to the euthanasia referee, an official appointed by the minister of health, together with two medical certificates, one from the attendant doctor and the other from a specially qualified practitioner. The referee is to conduct a personal interview of the patient and establish that he fully understands what he is doing. Euthanasia is to be administered by a licensed practitioner in the presence of an official witness, such as the minister of religion or a justice of the peace. The bill sponsored by the Euthanasia Society of America is very similar, but provides for application to the courts for a certificate, the courts being empowered to appoint a committee of physicians and others to investigate the case."
This bill was severely criticized at the time and, as indicated earlier, never became law. Citing again from
Private Members' Business
the same author: "This approach to euthanasia has been criticized as cold bloodedly formal and cumbrous, and Dr. Glanville Williams, who was the noted English academic authority on criminal law, has suggested that a more acceptable proposal would be to provide that no medical practitioner should be guilty of any act done intentionally to accelerate the death of a seriously ill patient unless it is proved that the act was not done in good faith with consent of the patient and for the purpose of saving him from severe pain in an illness believed to be of an incurable and fatal character".
Dr. Glanville Williams' advice was subsequently adopted in the voluntary euthanasia bill, which was introduced in the House of Lords in March 1960. As was the case with the 1936 bill, it was rejected on second reading.
The bill we have before us for debate is the 1936 English bill, with the addition of the good faith protection for medical practitioners, which in the 1960 bill replaced the earlier, more formal approach. Bill C-261 has thus been cobbled together with two English bills which were never debated in the English House of Commons and which did not obtain second reading in the House of Lords.
The only concession to Canadian content has been to replace the minister of health with the Attorney General of Canada as a person with the dubious privilege of designating the official to be known as the euthanasia referee.
Another difference is that in this bill, there is no requirement for official witnesses to the administration of euthanasia.
Most of this bill was prepared before World War II and its application is not restricted to the terminally ill. It applies to what is termed an "irremediable condition", which is defined as "an incurable illness, disease or impairment". This definition would include mentally disordered persons as well as persons with developmental handicaps and physical disabilities.


An hon. member:: Even ageing.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: Do not tell me that, please. It reflects an attitude by some that persons in these conditions were a burden to society and would no doubt wish society to help remove the burden if it were possible to do so in a legally valid manner. To put it bluntly, this English bill was part of another era and we need to devise a modem solution to modem problems. Importing a bill which was

October 24, 1991
Private Members' Business
rejected twice is certainly not addressing modern concerns.
Do I have a couple of minutes left?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is there unanimous consent of the members?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Robert Nesbitt Horner: I thank the hon. member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell for giving me consent to proceed.
For these and other reasons, this bill is totally unacceptable. Its provisions are unfair to doctors, as well as to the general public. Under this bill, a doctor could administer euthanasia when the individual had changed his mind and the doctor was unaware of the change.
Under this bill an euthanasia certificate may be revoked by its destruction or cancelling it by writing "cancelled" or something similar on its face, but there is no requirement that the doctor review the situation with the person involved or even review the certificate before administering euthanasia. There is very little responsibility on the doctor to do anything after he gets the certificate from the euthanasia referee.
This approach could be compared with the Canadian Medical Association's position on resuscitation of the terminally ill, which requires that the attending physician and the nursing staff review a no resuscitation order at appropriate intervals and that a request by the patient to rescind a no resuscitation order should be implemented immediately.
It seems clear that there is a need to examine the claims of those who currently advocate the need for euthanasia legislation, as well as the position of the Law Reform Commission of Canada, that of other groups and the experience of other jurisdictions. It has been suggested that Canada follow the Netherlands model. It may be useful to inquire why the Netherlands, like the other European community countries, has no euthanasia legislation, although there is protection in Netherlands case law for euthanasia under very stringent conditions.
I want to conclude by saying that what is needed at present is an analysis of the issues and informed discussion, rather than an attempt to give an anachronistic British bill new life in the Parliament of Canada.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those days when I wonder whether I should be angry or sad; sad about the role we are being asked to play in the House today.
Mr. Speaker, this may sound old fashioned to some people, but I maintain that no one on earth has the right to decide whether someone may live or die.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House today concerns so-called euthanasia. I always wonder why people feel they must use these terms in this kind of bill. I see here on page 2 of the bill: "Application for administration of euthanasia". If I ask Mrs. So-and-So in my riding to tell me what that means, she probably won't be able to give me a definition. Of course, what it means is an application to have someone else help us commit suicide. That is what it means. We can give it another name, but let's not forget what we are really saying.

Section 4 of the bill describes who is eligible for euthanasia. A person who is suffering from an irremediable condition and is not less than 18 years of age may make a written application to the referee on euthanasia for an euthanasia certificate.
Let us look at the definition of that word irremediable. It says: "means an incurable illness, disease, or impairment". It does not have to be life threatening or anything like that. Diabetes certainly qualifies in that group. It is incurable, at least as far as we know today. But is something that is incurable today incurable tomorrow? Probably all forms of cancer were incurable some decades ago. That is not true today. What is incurable at one point may very well change. Further, it does not even have to be a terminal disease.
Surely there is something wrong. Even if someone disagrees with me in my original statement, surely there is something wrong with that definition.
October 24, 1991

I could even argue that aging is incurable. What about arthritis? As far as I know many forms of that are incurable. Is that also grounds for the use of this bill?
Then I read the briefing note our colleague provided, and I thank him for this. I must say it does not make me want to support the bill more. It does the opposite but it does assist us in understanding what he is trying to do in spite of the fact that I disagree with it. It says that individuals of less than 18 years of age can only make such an application with the written consent of a parent. What are we saying? That an adult can give the consent for a child to be killed?
Is this what we are saying as a society? Were we debating this bill in the British House of Commons a few years after the Magna Carta in 1215 maybe that would be possible. Some years from now when someone dusts off the old pages of Hansard they will wonder in what century we were living when we considered ourselves modern, compassionate people, yet this is what we were saying. I cannot agree with that.
It has been said today by the proponent of the bill and I know I am paraphrasing, that the Hippocratic oath is perhaps outmoded.
Here is what it said. The Hippocratic oath said in part: "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone if asked, nor suggest such counsel."
The modern day Hippocratic oath was adopted in 1947. It is called the Declaration of Geneva. The Declaration of Geneva says: "I will give no deadly medicine to anyone, even upon request, nor suggest any such counsel." That was said in 1947, not 400 B.C. like the Hippocratic oath. It is equally true today.
One of our colleagues, a medical doctor, a specialist in paediatrics and child health, a professor of medicine and a member of Parliament for Winnipeg North, said earlier today and I asked him to write it down for me so that I could quote him in the House: "This bill violates the inherent and paramount principle of medical ethics, not to will or intend the death of a patient even when they wish it for themselves. I believe as well that life becomes even more precious when there is little left to live."
I share those views but I also am very concerned about what this bill could mean, or any other bill like it, for people who have reached a certain age in life.
Private Members' Business
I was party to a conference in British Columbia a number of years ago at which a physician by the name of Dr. Will Johnson spoke. Dr. Johnson said the following about what happens now in Holland. I quote from his speech: "What has this practice done to the concept of trust? Rumours abound. One psychiatrist muses that he has a choice of two nursing homes for his elderly patient. One of the homes he feels is involved in fairly aggressive euthanasia of the demented elderly, and he says 'my patient would not last half as long if I sent her there.' It has become common knowledge that some physicians take the initiative 'you really ought to go to hospital now or I could just give you an injection.' Given widespread fear of hospitals and ignorance of the effective palliation that is available, this ominous scenario is now complete."
Let me quote the following before I end. Again, from Dr. Johnson's speech: "In one published case, the Dutch general practitioner was called to a patient's home and meeting her for the first time, immediately asked her to choose between hospitalization and euthanasia. When the stunned patient could not reply, he gave her one hour to think it over."
We are debating this bill for one hour today. Let us think it over. If there is only one mercy killing I want to do right now, it is to kill this bill immediately and put it out of its misery. Let us forget about this kind of nonsense. There is Bill C-203 on the Order Paper and I do not think I can agree with it either. It is with respect to the living will. We are not talking about the matter of the living will in any case today. What we are talking about is state legislated murder.
I cannot agree with those who say that we preserve human life by killing human beings and that we accept death as part of life. Death is not part of life, it is the end of life.


Mrs. Bourgault:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The parliamentary secretary, on a point of order.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if you would answer a question in connection with this bill. Since it is 6.40 p.m, and considering that during Private Members' Business the bill must be debated for an hour, if I am not mistaken-unless the Standing Orders have changed-will there be a vote?

October 24, 1991
Private Members' Business


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. This is not a votable motion, according to the information I have just been given.
Since no other members wish to rise on this motion, the period set aside for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 6.40 p.m, this House stands adjourned until 10 a.m tomorrow morning, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.42 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, October 25, 1991