1991-09-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, copies of a document entitled Shaping Canada's Future Together.


STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I rise to table the government's proposals to renew the Canadian federation. The proposals, entitled Shaping Canada's Future Together have one simple but nevertheless critical and crucial objective; to build a stronger and more prosperous Canada where all Canadians can feel at home. I believe that is an objective that is shared by all members of this House who believe in Canada.
Every generation of Canadians has had to redefine the terms of living together. Our generation now faces that same challenge. If we are wise and remain true to our traditions, we can transform challenge into opportunity. Our goal is not only a framework under which all Canadians can feel at home in this magnificent country, but one that better equips us to meet the challenges of the global economy in the 21st century and beyond. Because if we must provide Canadians with a valid constitution, we must also provide Canadians with a powerful and a growing economy. And one goes with the
other, and these two challenges have to be met by all members of this House.
Canada's needs are well known: aboriginal self-government; two Houses of Parliament that are truly democratic and progressively more responsive; recognition, in principle and in practice, of the distinctive character of Quebec; protection for the rights of all Canadians, particularly for minorities; a stronger Canadian economic union; bringing government closer to the people in framing national programs and in delivering programs and services to individual Canadians, to people; reducing wasteful overlap and duplication of government programs. There is not a member in this House who has not heard directly from his or her voters in regard to not only the overlap and the waste in government, but the perception that it is perhaps in some cases even more widespread than actually meets the eye. Of course, governments at all levels, not just Ottawa, must listen and lead and one that truly empowers people in exercising its powers.
Mr. Speaker, none of these changes is in any way contrary to the original concept of Confederation, now 125 years old. Rather, these changes add up to a renewal, now long overdue if the truth be known, of our Confederation.

Renewal is what Canadians everywhere seek for our country-not confrontation, not division, not rupture. Renewal of our values, of our institutions, of our working arrangements-renewal of the spirit of Confederation so that we can face the future more confidently together. Finally, renewal of our commitment to Canada and to the well-being of our fellow Canadians.
The proposals I am tabling today on behalf of the government will be referred to the Special Joint Committee on a Renewed Canada. These proposals are for discussion. That committee has five months to consult with Canadians. Its mandate is very broad. The process is open, not closed; it is inclusive, not exclusive.

Routine Proceedings

We seek improvements to our proposals and we expect changes. The joint committee will hold its first meeting tomorrow. The first witness before that joint committee will be the right hon. Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs, whose outstanding leadership in developing these proposals I know that all members from all parties will want to acknowledge with respect and gratitude.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Today, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to go into a detailed explanation of all of these proposals. They will be available to members of the House, to the media and eventually to all Canadians. Rather, I wish simply to outline them so as to convey to the people of Canada what lies behind the proposals, the spirit that motivates them and the objectives we had in mind in developing them.
In the Canadian constitutional tradition, there exists side by side protection for individual human rights and the rights of people as members of communities. The people of Canada cherish these rights as attributes of our common citizenship. They are defining characteristics of our Canadian identity. They capture in many ways the essence of what unites us.
Our proposals therefore seek to enhance both individual and collective rights. For example, we are proposing that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms be amended to guarantee property rights among our basic rights in Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We are also proposing more stringent limitations on the use of the so-called notwithstanding clause which enables legislatures to override many of our basic rights.
Of the various communities whose rights need and deserve protection, the aboriginal peoples of Canada have, in my judgment, a very important claim on our attention and the attention of all members. We have made a commitment to them that they will participate in the current constitutional discussions. We propose to entrench a continuing constitutional process for aboriginal matters. Consistent with these guarantees of process,
the time has come to break with our recent history in aboriginal constitutional matters which sadly, has largely been by any objective criteria, a history of failure.
We are proposing to entrench in the Constitution of Canada a general right to aboriginal self-government within the Canadian federation and subject to the Charter.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Our proposal would allow governments and aboriginal peoples 10 years to agree on the powers to be exercised, failing which they would be defined and enforced by the courts. In other words, the passage of time would work for and not against the aboriginal peoples of Canada. No aboriginal leader I know believes that self-government is by itself the remedy for the terrible deprivation and alienation that are so prevalent among so many aboriginal peoples. None underestimates the value of regaining the right to self-government and the responsibility that goes with it in providing an opportunity for First Nations' renewal.
That is what they ask, the right to get on with their own lives as members of aboriginal societies, the right to devise their own solutions to the terrible problems which over generations have come to afflict these societies, the right to work out their own place by themselves in Canada's future and the chance of a new lease on life.
I am proposing a deadline on the negotiation of the powers of aboriginal self-government because-I want everyone in Canada to understand this-I believe that we dare not wait another generation.
This is a matter of human dignity, of justice and fairness. We cannot repair the past, but we need not be condemned to relive it either. Let us altogether ensure that the future of the aboriginal peoples belongs to them and to their children in fairness, justice and equality of opportunity for all.

Mr. Speaker, about 285 million English-speaking people live on the North American continent. Surrounded by all these English-speakers is one piece of territory, Quebec, where some six million French-speaking people live and are a majority. They are determined to preserve and promote a vibrant French-speaking society in Quebec. They want to live their lives in French in a Canada that is both prosperous and fair. We must make certain that their capacity to do so is not inhibited, but is

enhanced by reform of our Constitution and renewal of our Confederation.
Constitutional reform must embrace Quebec's distinct society and we propose to do so, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Ninety-three years before Confederation, not after, but before Confederation, the Parliament of Great Britain recognized the distinctiveness of Quebec. The Quebec Act established Quebec's right to preserve its religion and civil laws. Exactly 200 years ago, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution Act of 1791 continued those rights. The British North America Act of 1867 rejected conclusively the attempt in 1840 to submerge those rights in a unitary system and contained other provisions supporting the distinctive character of Quebec.
The modem world with its economic, social and population pressures has in some respects overtaken the old Constitution and bent it out of shape. It is not surprising then that of all the provinces, Quebec has for 30 years been the principal advocate of constitutional reform.
In 1982, the isolation of Quebec from the patriation of our Constitution was a powerful reminder to Quebecers of their minority status and vulnerability as a society in English-speaking North America. In spite of the compelling economic and social advantages to Quebec of participating in Confederation-and no serious person in Quebec doubts those advantages-Quebec will assume the risks and responsibilities as well as the rights of a new federal partnership only if Confederation guarantees her cultural security as a distinct French-speaking society in Canada on American soil.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Seven years ago, Mr. Speaker, I committed my government to securing the return of Quebec to the Canadian constitutional family. We have never wavered in that commitment and today, Mr. Speaker, I reaffirm our determination to succeed.
I am sure that Quebecers will see in today's proposals the possibility of achieving the fundamental reforms that Quebec needs to evolve as a distinct society within Canada and to be a secure, confident and equal partner
Routine Proceedings
in Confederation. I have no doubt that this can be accomplished to the enduring benefit of all Canadians.
With regard to the recognition of Quebec's distinct society, we are proposing that clause 2 of the Constitution, a Canada clause, affirm the special responsibility of Quebec to preserve and promote its distinct identity as a French-speaking society. We are also proposing that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms be interpreted consistent with the preservation and promotion of Quebec as a distinct society within Canada. It must never be forgotten that Quebec is a distinct society, but always within a united Canada.
The affirmation of Quebec's distinctive character in the Canada Clause and the recognition of the distinct society in the Charter of Rights would be important and substantial amendments to our Constitution. They are essential safeguards for Quebec against the uncertainties of the future.
In our proposals relating to national institutions, distribution of powers and the economic union, Quebec will find the space and the freedom to evolve and to flourish as a distinct society in a more harmonious Confederation. Our proposals relating to the Senate contain additional protection for the French language and culture. And, Mr. Speaker, if collectively we find it desirable next spring to include in our plan any items that require unanimity, we will move forward with important amendments to the amending formula and additional changes to the Supreme Court of Canada to which we remain committed as a government.
The proposal to place labour market training under exclusive provincial jurisdiction is fundamental reassurance of the authority of Quebec and of the other provinces over matters related to education. The proposed entrenchment of immigration agreements such as that recently signed by the federal government and Quebec has long been regarded by Quebec as a vital element of her cultural security. Now we are proposing the negotiation and entrenchment of similar agreements on cultural matters with any province that so requests. We will define the roles of governments to reflect the particular circumstances of each province in cultural matters. The proposals for delegation of federal legislative power, as well as for administrative delegation in some fields-and the proposed rules on the use of the

Routine Proceedings
federal government's spending power-would create a far more flexible federalism than we have known, something many have advocated.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we all know that the people of Canada are going to be looking carefully to see whether in proposing change and renewal for Canada we parliamentarians might seek to exempt ourselves. Well, we cannot and we must not. I am sure that we all realize that in the minds of the people of Canada no area of our national life is more in need of improvement than the Parliament of Canada itself.
I want to draw your attention to our proposals for reform of the House of Commons. Some may say these proposals breach long-standing parliamentary traditions. I would argue to the contrary, that these proposals are more faithful than some of our modem practices have been to the essence of parliamentary government and MP's prerogatives and individual freedoms. If we pursue proposals along these lines, we will have government much more responsive to the elected representatives of the people, and we will have members of Parliament much more responsive to the people who elected them in the first place.
We will then be closer to the British system of parliamentary government as it was originally meant to be. We will have a more vibrant and a more vital Canadian parliamentary democracy.
The people of Canada properly demand a renewed House of Commons and a reformed Senate. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that our Senate proposals are very much in line with the expectations of people across Canada, but I look forward to the views of the public and the recommendations of the parliamentary committee.
The Senate that we are proposing today would, for the first time, be directly elected by the people of Canada. An unelected body exercising legislative powers equal to the House of Commons is simply not compatible with democratic government.
The Senate should also be much more equitable in its representation than is the present chamber. Equity includes a range of possibilities, from weighted representation of member states, such as in Germany, to equal representation of provinces as advocated by the Canada West Foundation.
We propose an effective Senate. As a general rule, in order for a measure to become law, the approval by both the House of Commons and the reformed Senate should be necessary. And the Senate should have to approve key government appointments that affect the lives of Canadians. For example, under this plan in the future, nominees such as the Governor of the Bank of Canada would have to go before a reformed, elected Senate to explain his philosophy and obtain the approval of that body.
On legislation involving language and culture, special voting rules, a double linguistic majority will apply as proposed, Mr. Speaker, by the Alberta legislative committee in 1983, and by the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in 1989.
On matters of particular national importance such as defence and international relations, the Senate would only have a suspensive veto.
Under our proposals, the House and the Senate would have somewhat different roles and responsibilities. We believe that good government demands that only the House of Commons be a confidence chamber, in order to prevent the kind of constitutional instability that parliamentary federal systems have known at other times and in other jurisdictions.
The Commons would likely become a chamber in which there was stricter adherence to the principle of representation by population, and the Senate in consequence, would provide more balanced and more equitable representation among the provinces. Both houses would have real power. Most important to Canadians, the Senate, like the House of Commons, would for the first time be accountable and responsible to the people of Canada.
I think, Mr. Speaker, there would not be much quarrel about it, that in the eyes of most people, for the first time the reformed Senate would have, as it is proposed today or perhaps as is modified by the parliamentary committee, democratic legitimacy.
Mr. Speaker, for some years Canadians have felt an increasing frustration with governments at all levels, and that is pretty obvious to all of us. Millions of Canadians sense they have lost power and influence over decisions that affect them, their families and the places they live. We must act to try and bring government closer to people. The reforms that we are proposing to the House of Commons and the Senate would greatly improve the

responsiveness of parliamentarians to the people who elect them in the first place.

But bringing government closer to the people also means sharing power and responsibility with provincial and municipal governments and with non-governmental organizations.
Matters such as labour market training, immigration and culture have important national dimensions for the Canadian economy and indeed for the Canadian identity. Our proposals would preserve the capacity of the federal Parliament to maintain the national interest and institutions in these matters. However, training, immigration and cultural policy affect some of the most sensitive areas of people's lives. Mr. Speaker, that is why we are proposing that provinces have control over training as they have over education.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is why we propose to negotiate and entrench in the Constitution federal-provincial agreements on immigration, tailored to the particular needs, priorities and traditions of each province, from British Columbia to Newfoundland. That is also why we propose to negotiate and entrench in the Constitution similar agreements on cultural responsibilities with provincial governments that so request, while maintaining the federal Parliament's responsibility-and I say it clearly, Mr. Speaker, to avoid any misunderstanding-over key national institutions such as the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and the Canada Council.
That is also the spirit behind our proposal to recognize the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces in such areas as housing, forestry, municipal affairs and tourism, while maintaining our international responsibilities in these areas. That is the spirit behind our proposal to require the federal government to work with the provinces in introducing new Canada-wide shared cost programs in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction.
However, Mr. Speaker, financing would still be provided to a province which preferred to tailor its own
Routine Proceedings
program to its own needs, so long as it met the objectives of the new national program.
Mr. Speaker, I believe we all know that the need to bring government closer to the people-and to share and to decentralize power-has to be balanced with the requirement for a strong Canadian political and economic union.

To reinforce the bonds that must unite us and to strengthen our capacity to compete and prosper in the world, our proposals include several fundamental reforms to our economic union.
There are more interprovincial barriers to trade and commerce within Canada today than there are among nations of the European common market. These barriers in our internal market weaken the Canadian economy and impair our ability to compete in the world. That is why we are proposing that the Constitution be amended to prohibit government barriers to the mobility of people, goods, capital and services anywhere within Canada.
In law and in fact our economic growth is profoundly affected by the policies and actions of both the federal and provincial governments. Fundamental conflict between federal and provincial economic policies can be absolutely disastrous. Even working at cross purposes can diminish our prosperity. It is absurd that the 12 nations of the European common market are moving toward a state of economic co-ordination and harmonization superior in many ways to the Canadian economic union which has been together for 125 years. Obviously we must do better. We must equip this country with the means to act decisively to ensure the best we can our own prosperity.
That is why we are proposing to amend the Constitution to provide the Parliament of Canada with a new power to make laws for the efficient functioning of the economic union of Canada.
That is why we are making a number of proposals to formalize the co-ordination of federal and provincial economic and fiscal policies. Together it is these reforms that produce the strongest framework of economic union since Confederation.

September 24, 1991
Routine Proceedings
We propose as well a Canada clause which would be entrenched in the body of the Constitution, in section 2 of the Constitution Act. I hope and believe that all of our people will see reflected in that clause their own place in Canada, the common values and aspirations that unite us and our national characteristics, and our identity as we wish it to be.
We are a nation with an immense capacity for generosity and compromise, a capacity that has never mattered more than it matters today. Parochialism, small-mindedness, mistrust: these are always present in any society. These lesser attributes have had their day. It is now time for the fundamental qualities of generosity and compromise to dominate the process.
There are in all 28 proposals that the Government of Canada is putting forward today for consideration by the joint committee and discussion with the people of Canada.

Before presenting our plan for renewal in final form, we want to have the report of the Joint Committee, whose mandate extends until February. As I undertook to this House on May 15, "the government will be very open-minded to constructive amendments offered in the spirit of improving its proposals and broadening the consensus that Canadian unity needs and demands".
The government's proposals should be and will be examined on their merits. They must also be considered in light of their purpose, which is a more secure, united and prosperous Canada.

These proposals which are perfectible and which are going to a committee beginning hearing tomorrow will hopefully be examined in an objective and fair-minded manner, not by people searching for perfection because perfection can become the enemy of the good but for proposals that are good for Canada.
No one need lose. If the cause, the hopes and the aspirations of western Canada are advanced, that does not mean that that advancement means a loss for Quebec.
If French Canadians feel no more secure as a result of constitutional proposals and feel a greater attachment
and greater love for Canada, that does not mean that the rights of Canadians in English speaking Canada, say in the Atlantic region, will in any way be diminished.
Constitutional proposals fairly considered, actively debated, and generously contemplated can be what they should be: a win-win situation for all Canadians.
How are they to be considered? Each one of us across the country, each premier, each taxpayer, each parliamentarian, each of us, will have to establish, I suppose, his or her own sense of parameters and his or her own objective criteria. I think that these proposals must also be considered in light of our greatest obligation.
We have many obligations. You can enumerate them, you can count them, you can divide them and you can add them up, but our greatest obligation as Canadians and as parliamentarians sitting here today is to turn Canada over to our children and grandchildren unsullied, undiminished and as a great, prosperous, united nation. That is our fundamental obligation.
To do that will require compromise and compromise is not an indication of weakness. Honourable compromise in Canada has always been seen as an indication of strength and maturity. The wisdom of knowing that all of us have to find our own places in the Canadian sunlight makes me hopeful that these series of proposals, once engaged, will give us all the opportunity to participate in the building of Canada.
Thomas D'Arcy McGee, who was a son of Ireland but who became a father of Canada, saw a brilliant future for our country. Seven years before Confederation he said: "I look to the future of my adopted country with hope, though not without anxiety. I see in the not remote distance one great nationality, bound like the shield of Achilles by the blue rim of ocean. I see it quartered into many communities, each disposing of its internal affairs, but all bound together by free institutions, free intercourse and free commerce. I see within the round of that shield the peaks of the western mountains and the crests of the eastern waves. I see a generation of industrious, contented men and women free in name and in fact, capable of maintaining in peace and in war a constitution worthy of such a great country."

Mr. Speaker, along with all other members of this House in all political parties, I too see such a country, a country of women and men, of your children and mine whose standard of living is the envy of millions and whose way of life is admired around the world. This country Canada, the second largest country on earth, is also according to the United Nations one of the two best countries in the world in which to live. The challenge for us now is to make Canada second to none.
The challenge is to build a stronger country for the security and the prosperity of all Canadians. I have said in this House on other occasions that the job of nation building did not end with Confederation, and had the Fathers of Confederation sought perfection and insisted on perfection there would have been no Canada in 1867. That was the beginning of nation building, but it continues with each generation and it continues to this day in our minds and in our hearts.
As McGee said, we want a Constitution cherished in the hearts of all of its people, not part of its people, not some of its people, not the people who live in the west and the east but English speaking Canadians, French speaking Canadians, from the north, the south and the east-all Canadians are deserving of a Constitution that represents them and reflects their hopes and dreams and aspirations for a new and a better Canada.
We have the challenge to keep Canada and today we have the opportunity to improve it. Nothing would serve the economic interests of all Canadians more directly than clear resolution of constitutional challenges. They have bedevilled this nation for too long. I think that it would be with a sense of national relief and gratitude that all Canadians dealt with a proposal that managed to bring this to a successful conclusion.
In that spirit I invite all Canadians, all political parties that believe in one undiminished Canada, to set aside other differences and to engage in nation building with the full exuberance that this magnificent country deserves.
I suggest that we get on with it, the building of Canada, of a vision of Macdonald and Cartier and McGee, and the country of our own dreams, a new Canada for a new century, honoured in the family of nations as a modern and flexible and caring country, a Canada respected by its peers, a Canada loved by its people, a Canada better able to serve its citizens with governments and institutions revised and reformed by this Parliament and by all
Routine Proceedings
Canadians that will be tied to the very best that Canada can provide.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today very conscious of the importance of the issue before us. At a time of significant national debate, each of us must fulfil our duties to the best of our abilities.
At a time when there is cynicism about the role of politicians, it is particularly important that the political process works the way it should.
I want it to be very clear that the role of the opposition is not to give a blank cheque to the government, nor is it our role to oppose simply for the sake of opposing something. The role of the opposition is to scrutinize, to ask the right questions, to propose improvements and to seek to correct errors. The role of the opposition is to speak for those who have no voice. This is a role that we will fulfil in the months ahead.
I want to say that our objective is the unity of the country, but this does not mean that we will necessarily agree with all of the proposals of the government. Indeed, our first impression is that the proposals of the government need a great deal of work.
Over the next few months some of the debates will be about issues of principle, and we will fight for our principles by proposing improvements, but much of the debate will also be about legal text.
What does one word mean? What does one phrase mean? Are there flaws that can be corrected or improvements that can be made?

Mr. Speaker, a constitution is both a political statement and a legal document. It embodies and reflects the values Canadians share and defines the legal structure of our society.
Unlike other arrangements such as collective bargaining agreements and trade agreements which are temporary and easy to amend, a constitution is not easy to change, and that is as it should be.
When dealing with fundamental values, with political institutions, with the delicate balance of a society, our approach must be considered and prudent. Since the changes we make will be with us for a long time, it is preferable to get the wording right before the proposals are agreed to.

Routine Proceedings

As a legal document which individuals, governments and the courts must rely upon, it must accurately reflect the intention of its authors.
Let us resolve not to transform a debate on legal meaning of proposals into an emotional debate about rejections and humiliations. Let us not transform a debate about values into a lot of empty rhetoric and political posturing.
Clearly it is too early for anyone to state definitively a hard and fast position on the government paper. Constitutional language is extremely important and some of the government papers lack legal precision. In many places we do not have a specific proposal, just a list of options.
Over the coming weeks and months, with the help of the people of Canada, we in this party will work to find specific answers. In this round we will not tolerate constitutional wording which is so deliberately ambiguous that it can be used to mean one thing in one part of Canada and something else in another part of the country.
Ensuring that these proposals are thoroughly debated, thoroughly reviewed and where necessary amended, abandoned or enlarged-that is our duty. It is a duty we in this party will honour. We will not compromise on principles.

As the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, I promise to do my best to ensure that all Canadians can take part in the debate on the proposals for constitutional reform. The Constitution does not belong to the politicians or the bureaucrats. The Constitution belongs to the people.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I need not remind the Prime Minister of the failure of Parliament's last attempt at constitutional reform. This attempt failed because the Canadian people were excluded from the debate. It was the wrong approach.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, enshrined in the Constitution in 1982 to embody the common heritage of all Canadians, was the result of long and passionate public debate and of negotiations between governments. The most progressive provisions in the Charter, including protection of the rights of the disabled and measures to help disadvantaged groups, were made as a result of public hearings.
Quebecers know how important it is to have a Charter of Rights because they drafted their own charter several years ago. The Quebec Charter has influenced to a considerable extent the Charter that is now part of the Canadian Constitution.
Canadians have a stake in the Constitution, and they feel they are its guardians. The constitutional debate is not the exclusive preserve of politicians and bureaucrats. If it is to be credible and command respect, the debate must involve the people of this country.
On April 21, I urged the government to produce detailed and concrete proposals for constitutional reform that would immediately be considered by a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons. We recommended that the committee hold public hearings to receive the views, advice and comments of individuals, experts, groups and governments.
I said at the time that tabling concrete proposals would make it possible for all provincial governments, including the Government of Quebec, to express their views and to seek agreement with the federal government on the substance of the reform. We recommended that the committee be authorized to make recommendations aimed at amending and improving the proposals to reflect the opinions expressed, and that seems to have been accepted.
Mr. Speaker, I sincerely hope the committee will make every attempt to involve the people in this debate. I also hope that committee members will work together to seek a genuine compromise.

The lessons of Meech Lake are written for all to see. The people shall never be ignored. I will hold the Prime Minister to his promise made today before the entire nation, his promise to involve the people of Canada in this new round.
September 24, 1991

This joint parliamentary committee is to report at the end of February. We must use the remaining time to study the proposals, to debate their meaning, to consult widely and to listen to the people of Canada.
I have spent time talking about the process because the process is very important. Now I will address principles which are equally important.
One of Canada's greatest constitutional thinkers, the late Professor F. R. Scott, once wrote:
If Canadians can agree upon great and lasting principles upon
which they wish their society to be built, then they can agree upon the
broad outlines of a Constitution to achieve these ends.
Our principles as Liberals are clear:
(1)	What is proposed must be compatible with the very nature of Canada, a nation which finds its raison d'etre in sharing diversity and respect for the rights of individuals.
(2)	The solutions proposed must result in real reform of our political institutions to ensure that the distinct concern of Canada's regions are respected.
(3)	The solution proposed must recognize the need to renew and modernize our economic instruments, including the training and mobility of our work force to create policies that will permit us to be competitive in the world of tomorrow.
(4)	Constitutional reform must not weaken the right of individuals as guaranteed in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
(5)	Constitutional reform must not weaken the Canadian duality, nor the rights of official language minorities everywhere in Canada.
(6)	Constitutional reform must not weaken Canada's cultural diversity and its heritage of tolerance.
(7)	Constitutional reform must not weaken the ability of a strong federal government to speak and act for all Canadians.
The Liberal Party of Canada entered this debate convinced that the things we call Canadian values are as relevant today as they have been at any time in our history. At a time when Canadian values are under attack and when our country is divided as never before, we believe that Canadians must remind themselves of the greatness of the Canadian experiment. We also believe that Canadians must devote their energies to finding new bonds and new endeavours which reflect our
Routine Proceedings
collective values. We must concentrate now on what unites us, and not what divides us.
More than ever we must commit ourselves to true Canadian values, values like generosity of spirit and collective action, values that will permit us to meet the next century with our head held high.
In discussing constitutional reform, we must reflect on the great and lasting principles of our society. Constitutional reforms must have one goal and only one goal, that is the well-being not of governments, not of politicians, not of bureaucrats, but of the citizens of Canada.
Which government holds which power only matters inasmuch as citizens are well served. Therefore, to serve the citizens of Canada, and that is what all of us have been elected to do, we must understand the values we share as Canadians. After all, Canadian citizenship means more than a shared passport. It is shared values. Quite frankly, Canadian citizens have a right to a government that can speak and act for all Canadians.
As Canadians we have a unique and profound commitment to a shared sense of social responsibility. We believe in equality and equality of opportunity. We respect the individual and we also have a very strong sense of obligation to the community as a whole. We believe that we are responsible for each other. We believe it is our responsibility, every one of us, to ensure that Canadians, wherever they live, enjoy a Canadian quality of life.
The partnership of French-speaking and Englishspeaking Canadians built a nation where French is not spoken only in Quebec. I am very proud to be in this House today and to have been elected in a riding where the majority of the people are Acadian and I am very proud that they speak French-

[-] that they speak French, that they are truly French even if they do not live in Quebec and want to remain French-speaking within all of Canada.

I am proud to be in a country where English is not restricted to the other nine provinces. There are a lot of people in my province of Quebec who are as much Quebecers as anyone of us and who are English speaking

Routine Proceedings
and deserve to be protected like anybody else. That is a fundamental cornerstone of what we call Canada.
I want to state clearly that we will not accept any constitutional change that will effectively split Canada into two nations, nine English provinces on one side, and a French Quebec on the other side.
Canada's aboriginal peoples are a fundamental characteristic of our country too. But at the same time the treatment of aboriginal citizens is also a test. It is a test of our values. It is a test that we have failed in the past. We must not fail again in the years ahead. We have built a country that has welcomed people from every comer of the world. Diversity and multiculturalism, the fact that we can be different and be Canadian too, are fundamental characteristics of Canada.

These values form the foundation upon which to build our constitutional reform proposals. The Canadian Constitution recognizes the importance of the individual. Thus it protects the fundamental rights and freedoms of every citizen.
It recognizes our two official languages and acknowledges formally multiculturalism. It protects the rights of the aboriginal people of Canada. It recognizes the principle of equalization which ensures that all regions of Canada are afforded equal opportunities.
The Constitution grants provincial governments great autonomy and considerable power. In itself, the Canadian federal system has promoted the development of provinces all distinct from one another. Quebec as we know it today and are all so proud of developed within this Canadian federation.
We also recognized that Canada is far more than the sum of its parts, far more that just a community of communities. A strong national government has always been necessary to meet the great challenges we face today. More than ever a strong national government is needed if we are to meet the global challenges of tomorrow, especially in the 21st century.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is a strong foundation upon which we can build. We do not have to start from scratch. We must improve upon what we have.

Let me repeat, Mr. Speaker. We have in this party recognized that Canada is far more than the sum of its parts. It is far more than a community of communities. A strong national government has always been necessary to meet the great challenges we face today. A strong national government will remain necessary to meet the global challenges we will encounter in the months and years ahead.
The Liberal Party will not compromise on this principle. Our approach to constitutional change will be guided by this principle. Let me be clear, Mr. Speaker. In Canada we have a strong foundation upon which to build the future. We do not have to rebuild our nation from scratch. Instead, we must improve upon what we already have.

Over the last several months, we in the Liberal Party of Canada have made public the kind of country we hope to build in the months and years to come. We are, I am proud to say, the first federal political party to have made their intentions known to the Canadian people.
I have made it clear that Canada must not stand still in an ever changing world. To maintain the status quo is not good enough. Most countries are making changes in their institutions to adapt to the requirements of the next century. I suggest that Canada must not be the exception.

I set out the objectives of the Liberal Party on constitutional reform in Montreal on April 21. They will guide us in our work over the next few months. Let me repeat them here in the House of Commons.
First, we propose that the Constitution include an inspiring declaration of the nature of Canada. This declaration would set out the will of Canadians to live together in a federal state, the principles which govern that state, the values we share, our commitment to two official languages, a recognition of our diverse cultural heritage, a recognition of the distinctiveness of Quebec and a recognition of the role of the aboriginal peoples.
September 24, 1991

Routine Proceedings
The government has tabled such a declaration. We will examine its wording and propose improvements where necessary.
Second, a commitment to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All Canadians have a strong attachment to the fundamental rights and freedoms found in the Charter. They want to see those freedoms strengthened. In the Liberal Party, our position is very clear. We will not accept any constitutional change that diminishes the rights and freedoms of Canadians protected by the Charter. We will not accept that.
Third, strengthening the Canadian economic union. In the Canadian federal state we are entitled to expect the full benefits associated with the unrestricted mobility of people, goods, services and capital. This is essential if we are to develop internationally competitive products, services and technologies, things we need to meet the demands of globalization.
Then we 'need to break down interprovincial trade barriers. Those barriers are coming down all over the world and we must break them down in Canada as well. The government has made some proposals in this area. Our first reaction is that they need to be strengthened. There appears to be too many loopholes. We will be recommending a number of major improvements.
Fourth, institutional reform. The regions of Canada need to be more involved in decision making and policy making at the national level. To meet the hopes and dreams of those who live in the west and the Atlantic, a reformed Senate is essential. It must be a Senate that is elected, effective and equitable. Such a Senate should have the power to examine appointments to important federal institutions and agencies. It should also protect the rights of minority language groups, and it should require a double majority for legislation touching upon the French language and culture.
It appears that the government has adopted a lot of this proposal. We will listen carefully to the view expressed before the committee.
[Translation\
Fifth, concerning the division of powers, constitutional reform involves the redistribution of powers. That is inescapable.
The criterion should be the following: jurisdiction must be granted to the level of government in the best position to exercise it. A functional approach should be used.
We must seek the arrangement that will best serve the interests of the people rather than that of governments, bureaucrats or politicians. The new arrangements must be flexible enough to meet the challenges that lay ahead.
There are a number of areas in which the federal and provincial governments should be able to pass complementary legislation. For instance, we should be able to adopt national environmental standards and let the provinces adapt these standards to regional requirements.
The government's approach to the question of power sharing seems to be to give up federal powers to the provinces, without getting anything in exchange.
We intend to scrutinize each proposal in the light of our principles, in other words, it must be functional, and there must be a national government able to act and speak for all Canadians. We will draft amendments as appropriate and submit them to the committee.
I would also like to discuss the subject of spending powers. We believe it should be possible to limit the federal government's spending power in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. In the past, the problem was how to reconcile restrictions on spending power and the need for national standards. A functional redistribution of powers would help limit spending power without compromising national standards. However, it is essential that by the end of February, we do not end up with two Canadas, one rich, with first class social services, and one poor, with second class social services.
There is also an administrative agreement between Ottawa and Quebec that governs immigration. This agreement must be made part of the Constitution. The government appears to have accepted the proposals we made in Montreal last April.

September 24, 1991
Routine Proceedings

Since the creation of the charter nine years ago, the Supreme Court of Canada is becoming more and more of a constitutional court. For that reason alone it is reasonable to expect that the provinces should have greater involvement in the appointment of judges.
To this end, a formula along the lines of the one proposed in the Meech Lake Accord could be adopted, provided that there is a real deadlock-breaking mechanism.
(7)	The aboriginal peoples: across Canada there is a broad consensus of the need to deal with the problem faced by Canada's first citizens. There is understanding of the need to deal with the status, rights and claims of these peoples. In our view any constitutional package must enshrine their right to self-government.
(8)	The amending formula: the process by which the Constitution is amended must be addressed. Liberals want a regionally based amending formula, combining flexibility with protection for each region and significantly improved public participation in the process. We believe it should be addressed now, not later.
(9)	A national referendum: I have proposed the use of a national referendum to ensure that we get the full participation and approval of the Canadian people.
I believe that the final constitutional package that emerges from the parliamentary committee report will be put to the Canadian people for their approval. That will be the supreme test of its legitimacy.

Mr. Speaker, I now would like to speak more specifically to my fellow citizens in Quebec. I am a Quebecer and proud of it. I am proud of Quebec and its culture. I am proud of its achievements and its distinct character, and I hope that our Constitution will reflect that distinct character.
As a Canadian, I am also proud of Quebec, of its culture, its achievements and its distinct character. As a Quebecer and as a Canadian, I know none of this would have been possible without Canada. I realize that Francophones in Canada, and especially in Quebec, are anxious to protect their language and their culture and that the present trend towards globalisation has heightened their concern.
I know how difficult and passionate discussions on constitutional reform can be. In the past, there were
insinuations of betrayal and bad faith. The words rejection and humiliation were used repeatedly.
The time has come to put a stop to insinuations. The time has come to examine our consciences. It is clear Canadian federalism can and should be improved. However, we must not forget that we live in a country that is the envy of the entire world, and we must now make it an even better place to live.
Quebec did not develop in isolation. Quebec belongs to the Western world. It had its quiet revolution. It reached economic maturity as part of Canada. The separation option would be a step backward. We must set our sights higher.
Our aim should be to build an even better country, a country whose resources and potential, geopolitical situation and diversity, ideals and values will make it possible for us to excel in all our collective and individual endeavours.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I know Quebecers are very anxious to constitutionalize the distinct character of their province. Our position is clear: as I have said many times, we want the Constitution to recognize the distinct character of Quebec. We want Quebec to promote the development of its culture and language, and we want the French fact to be present across Canada, and not just in Quebec.
However, we do not want this debate to be divisive. The government has just tabled a new text on recognition of the distinct character of Quebec in the Constitution. We will examine this text very carefully in the light of the principles I mentioned today.
I suggest we look at this text in a reasonable, not an emotional way, and keep a very open mind. I am convinced that by next February, we will have found the right words to enshrine in the Constitution the distinct character of Quebec, without in any way affecting the rights of all the citizens of this country.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As a Quebecer, a Francophone and a Canadian, I would like to repeat what Laurier said: "We are French Canadians, but our country is not limited to the land we see from the Citadel Quebec. Our country is Canada. Our fellow citizens are not only those with French blood in their veins. Our fellow citizens are people of all races and tongues who came to this country driven by the misfortunes of war, by chance, or of their own free will."
September 24, 1991



In closing, I want to address a few comments to Canadians outside Quebec. I say to them that the Meech Lake Accord failed for many reasons. One reason was that it did not address the legitimate concerns of aboriginal peoples of the north and of western and Atlantic Canada. I was among those who said that changes and improvements were required.
For a constitution to succeed now the aspirations of aboriginal people, as well as the hope and dreams of the people of the north, west and the Atlantic provinces must be addressed. I have constantly said in Quebec- and I have paid a certain political price for it-that the needs and aspirations of the rest of Canada must be addressed in any constitutional reform package. I said we need a Canada round.
But I want to say to the rest of Canada that Quebec too has needs and aspirations which are legitimate and which must be met.

I have said repeatedly in Quebec-at considerable personal cost-that the needs and aspirations of all of Canada must be dealt with satisfactorily in any proposal for constitutional reform. However, I want to make it clear to Canada that Quebec also has needs and aspirations that are entirely legitimate and that must be satisfied.

I appeal to the values we share of tolerance and particularly of generosity. Let us use the next few months to understand that Quebec's distinctiveness makes Canada a greater country. Let us use the next few months to understand that the flourishing French fact across Canada helps us compete in a global society.
Let us use the next few months to understand that aboriginal self-government is a test of our values. Let us all demonstrate over the next few months thoughtfulness, reason, generosity, a willingness to accommodate and a skill to negotiate.
Let us get this constitutional issue behind us so that we can be equipped to deal with the real problems and challenges confronting us.
Routine Proceedings
There is nobody who has been obliged to talk more about the Constitution than I since 1980 so I hope that I will turn the page soon and that we will devote our attention to jobs, to competitiveness, to the environment, to health care, to make sure that we can take our proper place in the world of tomorrow.
Do not forget what this government has forgotten so often, namely that we cannot get our constitutional house in order until we get our economic house in order. The two issues are not distinct. They are intimately linked.
We in the Liberal Party of Canada will be watching and will not permit the government to sweep our economic crisis under the rug once the constitutional dance starts once again.
Our nation has a history of accomplishments. Its history is not one of conflict. The Liberal Party has always worked to build a strong, united Canada. I cherish that legacy, and we shall continue that work of building a strong and united Canada.
There is a lot of work to do to improve this package; a lot of changes are necessary. We all have to work together. This time the people of Canada are watching. I want to tell the House of Commons and the government that we want to achieve the goal of keeping this country together and giving Canadians a new Constitution and a new departure for the 21st century.
But we have to do it in a way that is acceptable to all Canadians. We have to do it in a way that, rather than divide us it will make us closer to each other. We have too much in common to be complacent. This time we will be in a position to make some suggestions, and I hope that the government will listen. The last time my predecessor made some very good propositions in this House, some good amendments, which if accepted by this House, there would have been no crisis. But they were all rejected.
This time we will propose some amendments. We will help the committee to find solutions. We will make sure that every Canadian is comfortable with the new Constitution, because ladies and gentlemen, to be Canadian is the greatest asset we have, it is the asset that we want to give to all our children and grandchildren. Because, in spite of all the problems we are having, when we receive anybody who comes here from another country-like yesterday morning when I had the privilege to meet with

September 24, 1991
Routine Proceedings
the President of Ukraine-everybody when they look at us envies us.
It is our collective duty to make sure that this fantastic country remains one united, proud and independent Canada.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, today we begin a new journey as parliamentarians, as people of Canada and as a nation. We know it will be a difficult journey. It will sometimes be exhausting, sometimes painful, and that it will require from all of us on all sides of this House, as well as from coast to coast to coast, an openness and a tolerance for the diversity of this country and a commitment for the strength of a united Canada that acknowledges that diversity and which will truly make us strong as we go into the 21st century.
Mr. Speaker, although there will be problems along the way, there is also the promise of a better future. If we travel well and if we move in the right direction and achieve a destination we can agree upon as Canadians, we can build that better country; a united and an enlightened Canada that stretches from the Atlantic to the Pacific to the Arctic Ocean. That Canada is the goal of the New Democratic Party.
I want to make it clear that this does, indeed, mark the starting point of the journey. As the Prime Minister has pointed out, he will be open to suggestions, he will be open to changes. The proposals put forward by the government are just that, proposals. The job of the joint parliamentary committee will not be that of simply selling those proposals or, indeed, selling the point of view of any one political party, but to take these proposals to Canadians and to listen to Canadians.
Today the Government of Canada has put forward its proposals and we have heard those proposals. Now we must go forward to hear the people of Canada.
In the coming months there will be much to say. I am sure there are things that Canadians can agree with in this document, but we must also raise questions and issues as well.
I and my party are committed to an open process. We have agreed to serve on the parliamentary committee because we believe that there we can help to open up that process, a process through which Canadians can
truly be heard and listened to, and a process through which Canadians can accept, modify, reject, change or add on to what the government has put forward today. The final outcome must and will reflect the views of all Canadians.
The Constitution cannot be left simply in the hands of politicians, but must be the work of the hands, the minds and the hearts of the people of Canada.
Let me also say at the outset that we recognize that these are tough times for Canadians. Canadian families have many preoccupations; the high unemployment rate, the difficulty in a vastly changing world. It is not easy to think about constitutions and nation building when Canadians are worried about jobs and taxes, about trying to make ends meet. This debate has to be made relevant to Canadians and it has to be meaningful in the day-today lives of Canadians.
Having said this, let us be very clear that the stakes are high. We are talking about whether or not Canada will continue to exist as we know it or there will be change. We are talking about holding on to and strengthening a nation that is much admired around the globe.
There is no one who has voted for myself certainly, or anyone in this party, who has given us permission to work to tear this country apart. They have said to us: "We must work to keep this country together and to renew the federation". That is the responsibility I take as the Leader of the New Democratic Party and that is the responsibility that my party assumes and will participate in.
But there are some people in all parts of Canada who say that it is too late for Canada. To them let me cite the words of a first generation immigrant, Rambod Beh-boodi, who said: "I came here as a guest and Canada was generous as it has been to the generations of guests it has accepted and accommodated in its short and glorious history. For that I am forever grateful. Surely though, we can be generous to ourselves once in a while. Would it not be a tragedy if this haven of sanity in our insane world were to give up on itself?"
I can only agree with that person who chose this country for many of the values that all of us hold dear. It would be a tragedy because we are a nation like no other, populated by the First Nations, a vibrant French speaking society, rich regional cultures, people who have come from every comer of this globe to make up the reality of
September 24, 1991

Routine Proceedings
Canada in 1991 and to work together as we move to the 21st century.
We are a northern nation of great possibilities, where citizens and cultures come together. I am here because I believe in this northern nation. I believe in its possibility. I believe that though we are far from perfect, we offer the world an example of tolerance and harmony. Yes, we can give to the world some hope. We have a responsibility to others, to ourselves and to those who follow to fulfil the promise of Canada. I am here because I believe we can join together to correct the flaws, address the injustices and create the best Canada we can, a Canada that all Canadians will want to belong to.
Let me turn to the proposals put forward today. [Translation]
It is too early to make specific comments on the proposals put forward today. I will have to examine them thoroughly before I can give an opinion.
I also intend to fulfil my commitment to consult extensively, a promise I made to the members of my caucus and of my party across Canada. However, I would like to say a few words about the vision of Canada presented in these proposals and how it compares with the vision of the New Democratic Party.
I think there are some aspects of this working paper that we can agree on. Mr. Speaker, there are also deep differences of opinion concerning the number of directions put forward.
Let me say, first of all, Mr. Speaker, that I am pleased to see that the government included in its document a number of suggestions made by the NDP among many others. The NDP has long been in favour of recognizing Quebec as a distinct society. We believe that this can really convey to the men and women of Quebec that their fellow Canadians truly accept, respect and understand the differences that exist within our country. We consider such recognition to be an expression of Canada's commitment to maintain and strengthen Quebec's uniqueness.
The NDP is also pleased to see that the government is looking at ways to reform our parliamentary institutions. We believe that such a reform could lead the people from Western Canada, from the Atlantic and the Far North to feel they have a say in decisions affecting them.

We are delighted, to say the least, to see that the government is looking at the abolition of the present non-elected Senate. It is a goal we have held for many, many years in this party.
One also sees in this document movement toward something else my party has long advocated, that is, the recognition of the right of aboriginal people to self-government. In this document, the government does not address the inherent right to self-government and I would suggest that that would be a major part of the discussion as the committee goes forward.
Let me say in this area, that the fundamental principle must be that aboriginal people be involved in every way at every stage, at every step, along the way. The First Nations of Canada must have a prominent place at the constitutional table.
Let me say with respect to the division of powers that it will take some time to fully study the government's proposals. We are talking about some fundamental changes. The New Democratic Party is not opposed to change, but we feel that in each area, there must be a rationale for how that change will meet the needs of Canadian people. In areas such as immigration and culture, for instance, Canadians must be able to see how these changes will in fact directly benefit them because all of these changes will have a profound impact on the future of our nation as a whole and how Canada will come to be defined in the 21st century.
I must re-state that the New Democratic Party believes that a strong Canada requires a strong national government. Any redistribution of powers that takes place must meet one fundamental test for this party. It must not be about meeting the demands of governments. It must be judged on the criterion of meeting the needs of citizens.
It is my view that the role of the federal government must be re-examined. The government has put out some proposals on this. Let us remember, if we try to accept the principle, as I certainly do and my party certainly does, that the diversity of Canada is part of our strength, that the rights of first nations, the distinctiveness of Quebec, the rich culture and contribution of our multicultural, multiethnic communities, the equality of men and women, are fundamental to who we are as a nation. If we are to recognize that diversity in a fundamental

Routine Proceedings
way, we must also recognize that the unity of this country will require a federal government that can represent every Canadian in all parts of the country in the national interest and in the international interest.
I repeat that there are a number of things that we can look favourably upon in initial reading of these proposals, but there are also elements that are potentially disturbing, elements that indicate that this government has a very different vision of the future of Canada, a very different vision. Of course it is the Conservative Party vision of Canada. It is a vision in some instances that is certainly not shared by the New Democratic Party, nor by many Canadians.
It is of course the government's right to put forward its vision in terms of its own political philosophy. If the consultation process, the parliamentary committee is to have any meaning, we must seriously look at all visions of Canada and try to come up with a consensus on what will best represent all Canadians and not one agenda.
I want to raise some questions particularly on the proposed economic union. I believe we can all agree in this House that the reduction of trade barriers, that greater co-operation among provinces and territories, is an important and laudable goal, but we must ask some hard questions.
Does the kind of domestic free trade in people, goods, finance and capital extend the same laissez-faire principles of the Canada-U.S. trade deal to a domestic playing field? Will there be winners and losers in this and, if so, how do we deal with that? Could this potentially lead to a whole new round of privatization, deregulation, diminishing social standards and diminishing corporate taxes as we look at this in terms of greater co-operation?
We must raise questions about the ability within Canada to reach the goals that we wish to reach in this economic co-operation if we in fact do not have a transportation infrastructure in place, which is absolutely necessary in a country of this size and which lamentably has been systematically destroyed.
What does the right of corporations to free movement of goods, services and capital mean for weaker provinces that seek to establish their own economic development programs? What does it mean for provincial Crown
corporations? What does it mean for provinces or territories trying to support local jobs and fledgling industries? What does it mean for affirmative action? What are the implications of this form of economic union in terms of aboriginal self-government agreements?
Economic union that only addresses control and harmonization but does not mention initiatives to have greater regional equality and to strengthening section 36 of the Constitution on regional equality falls far short in this party's opinion.
Economic union proposals which suggest that the only role of the Bank of Canada will be to address inflation, not as well to look at unemployment, to look at fiscal and monetary policies as an instrument to address unemployment, fall far short of what we can be and can do if we are to have greater co-operation in the economy across this country.
While we support greater co-operation and while we support looking at a renewal of the relationships among the provinces, territories and the federal government in economic areas, we must also not simply take a defensive posture but a posture that says in this economy that we will reach out, that we will initiate to seek greater equality, and that that will be a strong commitment of a federal government, any federal government of any political party, and a fundamental part of our Constitution.
Part of the proposals on the economic union includes a council of federations. There are again many issues that must be discussed in terms of what that council will do, what kind of decision-making powers that council will have, how those will mesh with the decisions of the House of Commons, and indeed what implications a council of federations has, which according to the document is to make many decisions, when in fact aboriginal groups will not be included on that yet will have, according to the same document, aboriginal self-government agreements.
Therefore there are questions to be raised. We will be doing so in a constructive manner with alternatives.
I find what is important as we move into this process at this point is that we are constructive and we do present
September 24, 1991

proposals. When we raise our vision of Canada and our alternatives, it is not simply to discredit someone else. It is because we truly believe that each of us in this House, each political party, has a contribution which will be fundamentally in the interests of Canada and that, if all of those contributions can be brought together, we will have the kind of consensus on a constitution that we must have. As we know, a constitution is not simply the government's constitution, the New Democratic Party's constitution or the Liberal Party's constitution; it is a constitution for the people of Canada now and in the future.
I also find it somewhat disturbing that the proposals put forward today include such things as the entrenchment of property rights but make no mention of a need to entrench social rights.
I have to ask what this says about the kind of Canada the government envisions. What kind of constitution will it be if corporations have rights such as to pollute the property they own when children have no recognized rights to health care in this country? Surely our goal for Canada must not simply be to further the rights of private interests but to further the rights of Canadian families and to further the public good.

What is missing in these proposals, Mr. Speaker, is a Canadian Charter of social rights to recognize and define the rights of the Canadian families and foster the public good. This Charter would define our social rights, such as the right to health care, to equality, to a decent standard of living and to collective bargaining. It would also define the responsibilities of the citizens, men and women, and those of the government to ensure that these rights are respected. In fact, a Charter of social rights is a commitment from the people of Canada to the people of Canada, a commitment to define the principles and values we share, to protect the institutions and programs that reflect these principles and values, to determine what it is we want to accomplish and to find a way to reach our common goal.

The Constitution is, in a word, about freedom. The rights to equality, to recognize diversity, the rights of individuals are enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But there is no freedom without public health
Routine Proceedings
care. There is no freedom for the worker without a job. There is no freedom for the woman without equality. There is no freedom for the child without education. There is no freedom for the minority without human rights.
A charter of social rights would direct governments to provide quality health care, work toward full employment, move society toward equality, provide education for our young, and ensure that the human rights of all are respected.
A charter of social rights is about creating greater freedom. Surely that is a goal that all members of this House embrace.
As we enter this remarkable period in our history, the question confronting Canadians is: Can we agree upon a vision, a vision of this country, a destination that we can all share? I believe we can do that.
Canadians are a caring and a tolerant people. We are a people who celebrate the richness of our society and value the bonds we share. We have a history of drawing on each other's strengths and compensating for each other's weaknesses. We have a future, if we choose it, of a stronger partnership, a shared prosperity, equality and freedom.
I recently read an article about the opening of a new school in Toronto. During that opening the school choir of 75 children from every racial and cultural background, 75 very different children growing up together, learning to live together, singing together, performed some compositions. Among the songs they sang were Dare to Dream and Look Beyond Tomorrow. Let us think of these children as we enter this new phase in the development of Canada and of our Constitution. Let us dare to dram and let us look beyond tomorrow.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-292, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (severance pay).

Routine Proceedings
She said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill to amend the Canada Labour Code for severance pay is to provide that in cases of substantial lay-off employees who have at least 20 years of employment with the establishment shall receive severance pay amounting to six months' wages. The bill also provides for 16 weeks' notice of lay-off.
At a time when we are witnessing substantial lay-offs, it is important that workers who will be forced to relocate and find new employment be compensated for their years of service to their previous employer. This is especially important for older workers who will have a more difficult time in finding alternate employment.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

Joy Langan: for leave to introduce Bill C-293, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canada Labour Code and the Public Service Employment Act (whistleblowing)-
She said: Mr. Speaker the purpose of this bill is to provide for sanctions against public sector employers who discharge or otherwise discipline employees for what we call blowing the whistle, a serious misconduct by the employer.
The measures in this bill would be to protect the employee who, when acting in good faith, makes known to the public actions by the employer or actions being considered by the employer that are illegal and contrary to public policy or which would endanger public health and safety.
The bill would amend the Canada Labour Code, the Public Service Employment Act, as well as the Canadian Human Rights Act. It would then apply to all employees and employers who fall under federal jurisdiction.
Whistleblowing protection is needed if employees are to be free from threats or intimidation if they report on the misconduct of their employer.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-294, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it just seemed to me, on a day when the attention of all members of the House quite properly was directed toward the saving of the country, we might spare a small thought for a small measure to aid in the saving of the planet.
In 1982 this House passed the Motor Vehicle Fuel Consumption Standards Act. That act has never been proclaimed. The goal of the bill before us today is simply to amend the last section of that act to provide that it will come into force on January 1, 1992. At that time, the original act would take effect which allows the cabinet to set fuel standards for new cars, vans and trucks to reduce emissions to fight the greenhouse effect on this planet. It is a small measure, but great things come from an aggregation of small measures.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-295, an act to provide for the imposition of certain economic sanctions against countries that engage in driftnet fishing and to amend the Fisheries Act.
She said: Mr. Speaker, as today is United Nations Day,
I think it is appropriate and I feel very fortunate to have the opportunity to introduce this bill, which most nations of the world have seen fit to support via the Wellington Convention.
Driftnet fishing has been widely condemned for the destruction caused to non-target species by the hundreds and thousands of miles set daily in the oceans

ament lines which have been cut loose and continue to trap and drown vast numbers of marine mammals.
This bill amends the Fisheries Act, providing the option to set duties or bans on countries which may be intruding upon the global commons, threatening the viability of fisheries, or insisting on driftnet fishing which could lead to the extinction of species.
I am pleased to offer this bill to the House for the consideration of the hon. members and to all Canadians.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Lynn Hunter: for leave to introduce Bill C-296, an act to amend the International Development (Financial Institutions) Assistance Act.
She said: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to introduce this bill which will complement the Canadian initiative to ensure that economic development meets the needs of the people and the environment.
This bill will act to ensure that any activities Canadian institutions offer the international community will first be required to consider the impact on the human and natural environment.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of the Environment introduced such a process this year to Canadians, saying that the environmental implications of all proposed federal policy and program initiatives will be considered before decisions are made.
The intent of this bill extends our commitment to the international efforts in which Canada will be involved, offering a similar review process and commitment when providing assistance or endeavouring to undertake cooperative development.
I dare say that through amending this bill to the International Development Assistance Act, Canada will truly be attempting to practise what we preach.
Routine Proceedings
The world, its people and the environment will truly be considered in all efforts by Canadians. I am pleased to offer this bill to the House for the consideration of all.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-297, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (oats and barley).
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a result of a removal of oats from the Canadian Wheat Board in 1989 by an Order in Council.
Since that time many producers in Saskatchewan and throughout western Canada have expressed some great concern that the Wheat Board can be affected simply by an Order in Council and not by Parliament itself with an open and proper debate.
Therefore, the purpose of this bill would be to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act to include oats and barley under the Wheat Board and that there could be no changes to oats or barley without this House, the Parliament of Canada, passing such legislation and such changes.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-298, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cattle and other animals).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the intent of this bill is to give livestock owners the opportunity to defend their livestock from attacks by packs of stray dogs.
As a farmer, I have witnessed livestock breaking out of their feedlots and corrals to escape vicious attacks by packs of stray dogs. It took days to round them up and to get them back to their quarters and calm them down. I have witnessed sheep that have been attacked and killed, others disembowled, and some others terrorized to the point where they never recovered.

September 24, 1991
Routine Proceedings
Ranchers and farmers need this legislation. They need the right to protect their livestock, which is their livelihood. They have asked for this legislation.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Rodney Edward Laporte: for leave to introduce Bill C-299, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (travelling expenses).
He said: Mr. Speaker, many people living in rural Canada work a long way from their homes; Canada is a rural country. The problem is that these people cannot make reasonable travel deductions on their income tax for this purpose. When we have people travelling great distances to go to work, it seems only fair and right that in order to assist these people that there be proper tax deductions.
The purpose of this bill would be to allow taxpayers living more than 50 kilometres from their place of work to deduct travelling expenses. Lawyers do it, business people do it; working people should be able to do it as well.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Rodney Edward Laporte: for leave to introduce Bill C-300, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (tuition credit and education credit).
He said: Mr. Speaker, education should be one of the basic rights in this country and we should do what we can not to deny anybody such a fundamental right.
The purpose of this bill would be to expand the possibility of deductions for income tax purposes with respect to education, specifically for students in a public school situation where usually the parents or the students themselves have to pay for particular subjects. They would be able to deduct those expenses for income tax purposes. As well, the bill would allow the minister to
expand to special institutions, such as institutions for the deaf or such institutions of that nature, to allow for deductions as well for tuition fees paid for that particular purpose.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-301, an act to amend the Financial Administration Act (financial information). He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to present a bill to amend the Financial Administration Act (financial information). This bill will provide Parliament and all taxpayers with better long-term information on financial planning. I am responding to many in my riding who are tired of government spending that gives no thought whatsoever to the average taxpayer. We want accountability from our government.
This bill ensures that all government programs must be costed out fully and completely. If a department or program goes over budget, then the Auditor General and the public accounts committee will examine it, demanding the reasons for the extra cost and the alternatives that were considered before concluding the excess was unavoidable.
As a former municipal politician, I know that governments at all levels must be forced to stay within a budget. This bill will do that.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Private Members' Business:
M-14-Mr. Rodriguez
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should protect
Canadian workers by amending the Bankruptcy Act, including in
amendment measures to increase the dollar amounts allowed to
employees as secured creditors.
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, if there is unanimous consent, I move that Notice of Motion No. M-14, standing in my name on the Order Paper under Private Members' Business be discharged.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Does the House give unanimous consent that the motion tabled by the hon. member be withdrawn?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.



PETITIONS


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present three petitions signed by concerned citizens in the southern end of Nova Scotia who want to remind the government that CFB Cornwallis has first rate facilities that could easily accommodate any new duty, in addition to recruit training, that the Department of National Defence might require.
The petitioners ask this House and Parliament to urge that the Department of National Defence not only maintain but add to its operations and to find ways to use CFB Cornwallis.


VIA RAIL
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to present a petition signed by a number of residents of Canada, members of Transport 2000 in Saskatchewan in particular, but also people from Thunder Bay. It is consistent with the remarks that my leader made during her speech on the Constitution today that you cannot have a country unless you have a good transportation infrastructure.
The petitioners call upon Parliament to support the NDP plan to restore VIA Rail services cut on January 15, 1990, maintain and where appropriate upgrade remote services on which many Canadians rely, provide a legislative mandate for VIA Rail, and make available to VIA the resources which it needs to become a modem passenger rail system in a class with those throughout the rest of the western world.
Government Orders


OXYGEN CONTENT OF FUEL
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by several hundred citizens from the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who are asking the federal government to impose a minimum oxygen content in automobile fuel of 3.2 per cent, thereby eliminating the need for the compound named MMT.
I would also like to take this opportunity, Mr. Speaker, to congratulate the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex who drafted this petition.


CABLE TELEVISION
Don Boudria: have another petition, Mr. Speaker, which was also signed by some of my constituents from Glengarry- Prescott-Russell, the nicest riding in Canada, naturally. The petitioners are asking the Canadian government to stop treating them in a discriminatory fashion in the area of cable television.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the all
questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-32, an Act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan, be read the second time and referred to legislative committee F; and the motion of Mr. Vincent (p. 2536).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I would like to inform the House that due to Ministers' Statements, Government Orders will be extended for 1 hour and 47

September 24, 1991
Government Orders
minutes pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(a) as follows: 60 minutes between 1 and 2 p.m. and 47 minutes starting at 5 p.m.

The hon. member for Dartmouth has three minutes left.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, I usually cannot say my name in three minutes, but I will do my best to try to conclude by contribution to this debate on this very regressive piece of legislation, Bill C-32.
Yesterday I focused my opposition to this particular piece of legislation by using some examples of what this government's economic policies have done to some of the poorest parts of this country, particularly Atlantic Canada. At that time one of the members opposite indicated, at least I heard them mutter from across the aisle: "This is not going to affect Nova Scotia. You are not one of the have provinces, where there is going to be a cap put on CAP".
Just because you come from a have not province does not mean that you do not have enough good and caring left in your heart and concern for this country that you cannot get up in this Chamber and speak for those you, perhaps, do not represent legitimately as a member of Parliament from a particular riding, but you do represent as a member of the Liberal party in this Chamber. There are a lot of Nova Scotians and Newfoundlanders in Ontario and Alberta and other parts of this country who are going to be affected very badly by this piece of legislation.
In Bill C-32, the government is attempting to put a cap on CAP, the assistance that is given to the poorest of the poor, the dispossessed, those who are down on their luck. It would do us all very well to just reflect for a minute on what this is going to mean.
There is nowhere in this country, rich or poor province, where the level of municipal social assistance that is paid does anything but keep the recipient of that social assistance and their family absolutely entrenched in a cycle of poverty. In this country an individual who finds himself in need of support and has to rely on a provincial or a municipal government for assistance has nowhere else to go to get enough to feed his family, have
adequate housing, to be able to clothe his children and to be able to feel that he is contributing.
What this bill effectively does is rob those provinces that are affected by this piece of legislation of the ability to enhance social assistance payments. Every member here, probably every weekend when they get home and hold office hours, has somebody in-and I know I only have a minute-but I want to use an example that was used yesterday by my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier. It is a startling statistic.
According to Statistics Canada, if you have a family of four with two parents working at minimum wage-working at minimum wage-those individuals live below the poverty line in this country. We are talking about the working poor. Another startling statistic is that in 1988 there are nearly one million children who are living in poverty.
In conclusion I want to say that this bill will do absolutely nothing but ensure that those who find themselves in that despair will find that their despair and misery will increase.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-TVinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Dartmouth who showed not only the goodness in his heart in speaking on behalf of his colleagues from the three provinces involved, but also to draw to the attention of the House, and indeed to the viewing audience, that we in the Atlantic region are not so concerned with our own province that we can't look at the country at large. But I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that as I stand on my feet today, I would think that the hon. member for Dartmouth, despite the largesse of his heart is probably more concerned about Atlantic Canada right now. And it is that sort of thing that has caused us to rise to this occasion.
I would like to ask the hon. member for his comment on the following aspect of this, which quite frankly has bothered me for some time and continues to bother me. Presumably, this bill is the government's response to try and reduce the debt, by transferring the debt of the national government to the provinces. I can understand that as a cost saving measure, but quite frankly I am getting a little sick and tired of hearing the government from across the floor blame this debt on Liberal policies.
I think after seven years of trying to run the country it
September 24, 1991

should now have another system of trying to find the reasons for why we are in this condition that we are in right now.
I know the member campaigned-we met a couple of times during the campaign for the 1988 election. Mr. Speaker, I recall quite well promises being made, and in particular the promise of child care, for I think it was around $4 billion. This government, as one of its election promises, was very adamant that it had a program and it was prepared to look at it, and it even put a cost figure on it of $4 billion. I mention that, not as a specific program, although I was very concerned about that.
But I was also concerned that there was another $8 billion of promises. I was somewhat concerned about this, because while the public debt was not a major issue at the time, certainly not when the government was campaigning, I think most Canadians were concerned with that. I recall the Minister of Finance of the day saying that: "These are not campaign promises; they are in the program. We are going to spend that money. They are commitments".
Mr. Speaker, days after-in fact, I think it was in the next budget after the election and this government's first budget-there was no sign of child care. There was no sign of child care in the next budget or many other of these promises, not the least of which was a prison in my riding that was clearly an election promise, though I expect it will start to surface again as one of their promises.
I would like to ask the hon. member for Dartmouth for his comment and his feeling on these kinds of promises that are made, on the one hand, and on the other hand trying to cut back and blaming it on the Liberals because "we now have to transfer all these debts that we can't manage to the provinces".


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has raised some very salient points. As members from provinces that are have not provinces at this time, to try to keep us from yelling too loudly against this bill, the government has said; "Don't worry about it, because it is not going to affect you, and you, of course, can trust us when we tell you that".
This is what it goes back to, a matter of trust. I remember clearly during the 1988 campaign that this government opposite also made a number of other
Government Orders
promises dealing with the well-being of families and the fiscal ability of families to make a living. One of them was child care. We remember that anybody who campaigned in that election said that child care was not a promise; it was a commitment. We also heard that regional development was not a promise; it was a commitment. We also heard that real tax reform that would save people money was not a promise; it was a commitment.
Just as with the prison in the hon. member's riding, we all found out very soon after the election that those commitments were written with disappearing ink. It is little wonder that people on our side of the House who stand with the majority of Canadians in opposing this piece of legislation say: "No, no, don't tell us now this is a measure that is only going to take place until these guys opposite can get their fiscal house in order. We do not believe them for a minute. Do not tell us that Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, the Northwest Territories, Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Quebec is not going to be nailed by the broadening and deepening of this particular regressive piece of legislation, because we simply do not believe them".
The record of this Conservative government in fooling or misleading the people intentionally or unintentionally during campaigns is there for all to see. The Progressive Conservative government gets up in this House and indicates that this is necessary for fiscal responsibility.
"The economy is in really good shape", do you remember, Mr. Speaker, during the campaign? I certainly do in Atlantic Canada. My hon. colleague from Newfoundland remembers. The Prime Minister went around and promised that he was going to cause prosperity to break out all over, to inflict prosperity on this country.
He certainly has not inflicted it on the Atlantic fisheries. My hon. colleague from Newfoundland probably spends most of his working day. It is a long day when he goes back to his constituency, having to deal with the economic chaos caused by this government's policy in dealing with the Atlantic fisheries.
When I go home to my riding I have to deal with individuals who are living below the poverty line. Every time they make a purchase they are paying the GST on it.

September 24, 1991
Government Orders
In conclusion, I want to reaffirm and agree with my hon. colleague that this is the thin edge of the wedge. This government is absolutely not credible when it comes to making promises on fiscal responsibility and prosperity.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have to tell my colleague that I am a little confused by the explanations given to us by the government. Perhaps he could clarify this for us.
We heard during the last election campaign that campaign promises were different than commitments, but the net effect has been that both the commitments and the promises were broken.
I ask my colleague whether he recognizes the difference between a Tory promise and a Tory commitment, because I cannot.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, quite simply there is no difference. They are both worthless.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I feel honoured to rise to speak after the hon. member for Dartmouth who has made such a fine and cogent presentation. In fact, I would rather not follow him because it is always very difficult to follow his dynamic and outstanding presentations in this House. I am sure his constituents are very proud of him this morning.
I want to address this again because while the hon. member did speak well it was the last part of the presentation that was started yesterday. To assist in the flow and continuity, and quite frankly to refresh myself on this, I would like to make it clear what the purpose of this bill is.


An hon. member:: Oh, oh.


Fred J. Mifflin: The hon. member from across the floor laughs.
There have been so many bills dealing with a number of items that I would like to find out if Bill C-32 is in fact a bill to cap what is called the Canada Assistance Plan and applies to the three richest provinces in the country: Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario.
Some people may ask, and those in my riding who are watching me may ask: "Why is the member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception speaking on problems in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario?"
There are two answers to that. One is that as a member of Parliament I am very conscious that I am a member in this House and represent primarily my riding. Certainly the last couple of months has been very focused on the disastrous fishing we have had and the effort on the part of me and my colleagues, and indeed the whole Liberal Party and caucus, in trying to get the government to address that problem now, not two or three months later or weeks later. People are without money and they are hurting now.
While that is a major concern, as a federal member I feel it incumbent, in representing my riding and my constituents, to speak on behalf of Canada and to be involved in things like the constitutional debate that we heard this morning and to concern myself about measures that are taken by this government, whether they apply to Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, Newfoundland or to the rest of Canada.
The second reason is the primary reason. The primary reason is that cutting off or reducing the assistance programs to these people and these provinces in which, by the way, quite a large percentage of Newfoundlanders live, indeed from my riding, will indeed affect them as I will later point out. It is very important to understand that these provinces that get what is called the Canadian Assistance Program for which this bill is meant do not receive federal equalization payments like we do in Newfoundland.
I want to express my concern for the equalization payments that were cut off to the Atlantic provinces because they are equal to this cap that is now being put on the Canadian Assistance Program. By way of illustration, I want to relate to you, to this House and to my colleagues, just what the transfer of payments and the restriction have done in my province and in my riding.
I do not want to go through the revelation again of pointing out the promises that were made. Indeed, one promise shortly after this government was elected was to reduce the deficit despite 22 income tax increases in that time and the imposition of the despicable and hated goods and services tax at a time it could not have been worse, not only for the economy of Newfoundland and Atlantic Canada but for the rest of the country. This was at a time when there was a made-in-Canada recession
September 24, 1991

that this government admitted to finally after being cajoled and reasoned by other members on this side of the House.
On top of all that, then, was a measure-and to me it was a despicable measure and a measure that I was not comfortable with-to to reduce the debt on a national basis. Basically this government is giving up the responsibility that traditionally the federal Government of Canada as a strong central government has had for those difficulties in the economy and those regions in Canada that were hurt the most.
That was one of the reasons this country was formed in 1867. It was, from a central viewpoint, to be able to cope with the problems that regions had. As each province joined then there was a better ability on the part of the central government to handle these regional problems. I very much regret that the government is divesting itself of that responsibility. It bothers me tremendously.
Since I have been a member of Parliament I recall the 1989 budget. Although it did not particularly contain great CAP measures or reductions in transfer payments, at that particular point in time it did close various parts of Atlantic Canada. I think VIA Rail was concerned and other measures mitigated tremendously against the economy. Then in 1990 there was a signal from the budget that we would have difficulties in transfer payments and in particular the 1991 February budget extended the freeze on the transfer payments to the budget year 1994-95. There had been a two-year freeze from the previous budget, and then in February we saw a freeze for another three years.
This came on the heels of lower payments in other areas. It came at a time when we were trying to standardize levels of service. It came at a time when the economy of the country was heading downhill and the economy of Atlantic Canada, because of the reduction in the economy due to poor fishing in Newfoundland and other factors in the rest of the province, became a major concern. On the heels of this dismal economic outlook, we had inflicted on us the reduction in transfer payments.
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, I think you would appreciate, as all members of the House would, that it is very difficult to get a precise dollar figure on this because it is based on certain projections that would determine what the transfer payments would have been if this restriction had not been placed.
A figure that certainly I see recurring-I can agree more or less with this figure-is that the activation of the reduction of transfer payments as it applies to the provinces other than the three being considered by this bill is in Newfoundland, $148.6 million in the last three fiscal years; Prince Edward Island, $33.8 million; Nova Scotia, $230.8 million; and New Brunswick, $167.3 million.
It may be higher now because of economic factors, but as far as I and my colleagues are concerned the net effect of these developments has been to erode Ottawa's contribution to provincial treasuries in the Atlantic region rather severely.
To give some indication of the totality of what this means, we in Newfoundland, and indeed those in the rest of Atlantic Canada, rely largely on the central government and on these Ottawa transfer payments for a percentage of our annual budget.
The net result of what was done, the subject that is being discussed right now, is that the proportion of [DOT]Newfoundland's total current account, the revenues in the budget of last year coming from federal resources, was down from 50 per cent in the previous year to about 45 per cent.
That is a 5 per cent reduction. That is incredible. Corresponding figures applied for Prince Edward Island, for Nova Scotia and for New Brunswick.
I do not have to point out to anybody who is listening to this from the Atlantic region the downstream effect that this has had. Irrespective of the stripe, colour and kind of government, they have had tremendous difficulties in coping with the financial difficulty that this has transferred to their government, to their caucuses and cabinets and eventually to their people.
The net effect of this cap has been the same, because these transfer payments are essentially meant to assist those who need it the most.

September 24, 1991
Government Orders
The CAP program per se, as I see it, helps those who are helped in a similar manner by the transfer payments. I am looking at health, social assistance and, to a certain extent, education.

Mr. Speaker, among those who benefit from the Canada Assistance Plan and the other social services are, firstly, the children who need protection because they suffer from abuse or neglect, but also the handicapped, whether physically or mentally, single parent families, older persons, the unemployed, families and individuals in distress, low-income workers and battered women.

CAP is the main component of Canada's social safety net. We have heard that so many times that I think it means so much to so many people. It is the last resource for those who have exhausted or have been denied all other forms of financial assistance.
In 1988 and 1989 for which there are solid figures this program benefited 1.853 million Canadians from the social assistance provisions. Now 46 per cent of these recipients live in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario which are the provinces that would be affected by CAP. This was related and spoken to in great lengths when Bill C-69 was being discussed. The inadequacy of social assistance benefits is a leading cause of child poverty in Canada.
I do want to return to something that I spoke about earlier here this morning. I did indulge the House to a certain extent and was supported by my hon. colleague from Dartmouth in his presentation of his concern. I have to reflect on the difficulty I have with a government that is trying to convey the impression that it is caring, that it is concerned, and that the needs and the cares of the ordinary person matter to them.
I would attribute and I would ascribe that concern to them because I know a lot of the members across the floor of the House. I deal with them on a regular and hopefully often a non-partisan basis, people like yourself, Mr. Speaker. I know that as individuals there are caring people on the other side of the House. But I have some difficulty understanding how that is translated from the individual concerns to the government as a group of people trying to run the country. I do not know how much influence the caring members have but there are many examples of that.
Mr. Speaker, I will give you one example. While it may not be directly related to caps, transfer payments and equalization payments, it certainly is a concern that we see every day. I have seen it every day. In particular, I have seen it since about May of this year.
I am not unlike any other member. I am not going to stand up here and take credit for travelling through my riding extensively. Every member pretty well does that, any members that are worth their salt. It is one thing to hear about it on the radio. It is something else to go and talk to an individual and say: "What kind of a year are you having?" We do this not only to listen to their words but to see the look on their faces, to see the despair, the emotion, and to talk to their families-their wives, fathers, mothers, brothers and sisters-to see the difficulty they have in coming to grips with just the thought that no one really cares to the point where they are prepared to do something for them.
I wish it were otherwise that I had to stand up here and ask for assistance from the government for the people whom I am responsible for in Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. In the first instance we had a situation in Newfoundland where the ice conditions were extraordinary. I have a background in marine subjects. I have spent essentially a lifetime at sea. I am from a family that has spent a long time at sea. I am from a province that has a seagoing heritage which needs no amplification here.
I have never seen a year like this. In the memory of those people to whom I speak, they have never seen a year like it either. Fishing normally starts in May, cod fishing. This year, May came, no fishing; June came, no fishing. In fact every week fishermen were trying to get their nets out and catch some fish, essentially cod, and they could not even get their nets out. When they got their nets out they were destroyed.
I will have to say that the government eventually did come up with a rescue package the day before this House closed on June 18,1 believe it was. It was for $18 million.
I am grateful for that and my people are grateful for that.
However, every single day and every single week there were questions in the House of Commons. The people who finally got some assistance had to go through a living hell to get that. They did not know they were going to get it. Every day I would get 40 to 50 telephone calls toward the end saying: "When is something going to be done for us?" Eventually there was recognition that something
September 24, 1991

had to be done and eventually there was consideration shown.
The point I want to make is that the human anxiety people went through before this aid package was given was something that I am physically and mentally incapable of portraying to this House of Commons. Equally, beyond that we are in the same position, except it is worse because more people are involved and the financial constraints and financial implications are even worse. I am going down to my riding this weekend and I know I am going to be speaking to yet more fishermen, more plant workers and plant owners. Everybody in the riding is affected by that. They are asking me: "When is something going to happen?"
Most of them have seen me and my other colleagues in the House ask the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Minister of Employment and Immigration when something was going to be done for these people. Their answer is: "We are working on something and we will let you know when it is ready".
I cannot go back to my riding and tell people: "Well, I cannot do any more because the government is not ready yet". My responsibility, as I see it, is to explain the problems of my riding to this government and not to go back and explain to Bonavista-Trinity-Conception why this government has a particular policy.
In other words, I am here to express the policies and concerns of my constituents to this government and not to go explain government policy back to my constituents. I have to do it sometimes, particularly when it affects them. Surely, it has to be a two-way street and surely my responsibility is primarily to represent them in explaining to this government what their problems are instead of going back and saying to them: "This government has a problem because it has not been able to reduce the national debt despite 22 tax increases, the goods and services tax, the cutbacks on VIA Rail and the cutbacks on this and that".
The cutback in Atlantic Canada, in my province, is such that one has to live in the United States to call a toll-free number to cross on the ferry. If one lives in Newfoundland one cannot call a toll-free number to
Government Orders
make a reservation to go across the gulf either from Argentia or from Port aux Basques. That is totally unacceptable. It is totally uncaring. It is a small thing, but it irks people. They believe that somebody up here, the governing party, really does not care about them.
I see that my time is coming to a close. I want in closing to make three final points.
The first point is that for all the reasons I and and my other colleagues have mentioned, we in the Liberal caucus are consistently opposed to this limit on the Canada Assistance Program.
Second, we do not support the measure that transfers the burden of national debt and the federal deficit reduction on to the backs of poor Canadians. Why should rich Canadians pay for poor Canadians? That is not the concept of this country. That is not what we believe in. That is certainly not what I believe in, as an individual who represents people who are not rich.
Finally, while the government may have the legal right because of a Supreme Court judgment to cut welfare payments to the provinces, I do not believe there is a moral right to abandon its responsibilities to poor and disadvantaged Canadians.


Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of Parliament from Kootenay East, British Columbia, I feel compelled to speak out against this regressive legislation. It is no wonder that we do not see in the House Conservative members from British Columbia getting up and supporting this piece of legislation. That is because it is a cutback in social programs for the province of British Columbia. As a member of Parliament who represents an interior area where many people are subjected to having to use and apply for social assistance, I find this very offensive.
Just for a moment I want to refer back to the last election. As we went through the campaign the free trade debate was the big debate that was going on across Canada. We heard our Prime Minister tell the people of Canada, who were concerned about our social programs, our safety nets on our health and welfare programs and our medicare, that it was a sacred trust and we did not have to worry about it.

Government Orders
I want to say that they do have something to worry about. We have seen the changes to our Unemployment Insurance Act. We have seen the changes to our hospitals and so on. We have seen the waiting lists of people trying to get into hospitals and so on. We have seen the cuts in post-secondary education. Now we see Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan in British Columbia, in Alberta and in Ontario. The rationale of this government is that these are richer provinces, that they can afford it and that it is going to bring about some fiscal changes to the government and try to assist it in its debt.
I want to say to the House and to Canadians that the people who require social assistance do not look at British Columbia as being any richer than any other province. The need is there, the requirement is there, as some of the people in the government would know if they were to sit in some of these offices and hear the problems as I do in my riding with social assistance and the food banks. I visit the food banks. What does this message tell the food banks out there tiying to bring a bit of added assistance to people so that they can live a little better? Many of them are single women, many of them are children of single parent families, and so on. What does this message tell the food banks out there volunteering their efforts to try to make their lives a little better?
I want to say that the government is not admiring the work they are doing. It is saying to them: "We are going to make it even harder for you and you are going to have to go out there and beg further and further to try to assist these people".
While this has been going on, the government has brought in changes to our taxation system. It brought in a consumers' tax, a 7 per cent added tax so that even the people who are prepared to share a little more through the food bank systems are finding it harder and harder for themselves. The Unemployment Insurance Act has been changed and people are finding it harder and harder to qualify and to live on unemployment insurance payments. The post-secondary education clauses are being changed and our students who want to go to school and want to carry on are finding that they cannot.
This summer while I was sitting in my office and we were running into the fall session where students were beginning to want to qualify for student loans-and I am talking about a loan; I am not talking about a grant-they would come in to my office and say that they had difficulty getting through.
As a member of Parliament I thought that should not be any problem. I picked up the phone and I phoned the office in Vancouver time after time and that line was busy the whole time. When a member of Parliament cannot get through on the phone to talk to the department, it shows that this government is cutting back even in the areas of answering the telephone to try to assist people. I am finding the same thing throughout the various programs.
I look back at some of the problems I see with social assistance in my riding, where young children of 17 or 18 years of age have difficulty at home and find themselves in situations where they feel they are being abused. They are coming in to my office and I am going down to social assistance trying to find places for these people, and it is not being done.
I want to say to the government, and especially to members of Parliament of this government from British Columbia, that they have a responsibility to this province. They should not allow the government to cut back universality in our social programs, in our medicare programs, in our unemployment insurance programs and in our pension programs. That is what they are doing. The universality of our programs is being attacked in a very mean and cold-hearted way.
I have seen it not only in the social programs. They all affect one another. If we do not have proper health care, if we do not have jobs, if we do not have unemployment insurance, it all reflects back and finally we reach the stage where we come under the social assistance programs.
As the former mayor of a municipality, I want to say to the municipalities in British Columbia that they are also under attack. As this affects the province, it comes down into the municipalities and into the regional districts because in cutting back in these areas where the need is the most urgent they are going to find that it will reflect on the way of life of those whole communities.

It is much harder to receive these services because we are at the very extreme end of the province. Many times you have to fly to Vancouver or Calgary in emergencies.
These are some of the problems that we have and it all relates, because it all comes back to our social assistance programs, our medicare program. I had a case in my riding where someone had a very serious attack and needed to fly by helicopter to Calgary. They got halfway to Calgary and were told to return to Cranbrook because they did not qualify under the air ambulance system of that province. They had to fly under the air ambulance service, and they returned that person back to Cranbrook.
Is that the kind of rationale that we are getting into with regard to our services throughout the country? No. We in the New Democratic Party believe in universality. We believe that the poor and the people who require that assistance should be treated equally in every province throughout Canada.
That is not happening. That is not what this legislation says. Bill C-32 allows for the extension of the 5 per cent limit of the Canada Assistance Plan for the provinces of B.C., Alberta and Ontario. That is not universality. I say to this government; get back to the people. Is it any wonder that your government is running so low in the polls?
I see members from British Columbia sitting there, not getting up and standing up for the rights of our British Columbia people. I want to say to them; stand up and try to defend this piece of legislation because we have an election going on in British Columbia at the present time and the people of British Columbia will want to know where this government stands with regard to the social assistance programs in our province.
This government has a responsibility as a federal government. If the government is not capable of supplying jobs for the people and is not capable of allowing them to go to school to further their education, then surely to goodness we must have programs in place so that they can at least send their children to school with some dignity.
I do not want to leave the thought that there is any dignity in the meagre amounts of money that is available through social assistance programs because it is a very difficult time for children, single parents and the people who require this assistance to tiy to survive.
Government Orders
Go to the food banks in your riding and stay there on a Wednesday afternoon as I have done. See the people coming in and what their needs are, especially around Christmastime. You see exactly what is going on in your ridings.
I want to say to those British Columbia members that I have no doubt that it is going on in your ridings also.
I experienced a problem in my riding where the mines shut down. There were 800 people unemployed. Right away you might say: "They have unemployment insurance and they have other things," but the effects of that taking place and the impact it has on a community is devastating. It is absolutely devastating.
Without knowing that these kinds of programs are in place, makes it that much worse. For this government to bring about a program that is going to cut this back is just wrong. It is wrong, and the government should be looking in the other direction, to try to ensure that there is work for people, that they are able to live in dignity and earn their wages.
At least have the decency to maintain a social program so that they can continue sending their children to school, clothing their children and feeding them. Do not allow the food banks to have to pick up the extra stress because this government has decided it is going to make the poor and the lower income people suffer.
Also, in the same vein, we have the new changes that the government brought in concerning the UIC. Some of these people came into my office and decided to go on unemployment and upgrade their education so that they would not have to be faced with this problem again. They were told, however, that they did not qualify to go on UIC and upgrade their education.
What are we doing? We are changing legislation that the government wants to get out of so it brings in its unemployment insurance bill which places all of the burden on the workers and on the companies and the government stands idly by and watches things take place. It is all part of the free trade agreement. The people out there know that. The people know that the government is systematically getting out of these programs because of the free trade agreement. This is the first step. It is like the travelling salesman who knocks on the door and the first thing he does is shove his foot in the door. He knows if he can get the first foot in the door that is the first part of his sale. That is what the government is doing here. It is getting its foot in the door, bringing about changes in

Government Orders
these provinces. If it gets away with it, it will then bring about more drastic changes than that.
It does not surprise me that this is the route the government is taking. Everyone knew when the free trade debate was taking place that this was going to be the agenda of the government, to get out of many of these programs and to systematically move out. We have seen it.
Bill C-21 makes UIC harder to get, which makes it run out more quickly and, of course, brings people right back on to the social rolls. Family allowances have been cut back. It again comes back on to the people.
The clawbacks in pensions, less money distributed throughout the communities, cutbacks in the agreements between the provinces; everywhere we look this government has attacked. Where is the child care program that was promised during the election so that single parents, who wanted to get out and obtain another job and increase their method of maintaining their families? It is not available to them.
As I go through the riding, I see that social programs are not meeting the needs of the people at the present time. For this government to bring about a 5 per cent cut in British Columbia is just not acceptable. Yet we see our Conservative members of Parliament from British Columbia sit idly by and allow this to take place.
Mr. Speaker, I know you have a feeling, as I do, for the people in my province and I know that we all must try to bring about fiscal restraint and so on, but there are other ways of bringing about fiscal restraint. The entertainment tax that large businesses and large corporations are allowed to write off is one method of trying to bring about some restraint, but no, this government does not see fit to look at those kinds of proposals. Those people would be their rich friends that they are attacking.
When I read the Ottawa paper on Sunday and I saw an article concerning large buildings that are sitting empty here in Ottawa. But this government has the gall to put forward a program that would say to our people on social
assistance: "We are going to have to cut you back because of fiscal restraint." Here is a building that is not being utilized by this government and the taxpayers of this country are having to pay for it. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that is not good enough. As a member of Parliament from British Columbia, I say that I am deeply saddened that this government would use this kind of approach on the people who can least afford it.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying something which I think we should all remind ourselves of in this House from time to time, and it is that very few of us are poor. Because we tend not to be poor, we have very little communication and often very little understanding of what it means to be poor.
That gives us an extra obligation every time we debate a bill like this or an issue that affects those with whom we do not have personal connections, to make sure that we endeavour to understand fully and completely the problems that our actions in this House create for others and the effects they create.
I want to say that this bill goes to the very heart of Liberal principles about what Canada is all about and what any civilized society is all about. We believe very much in the value, dignity and worth of every human being and their right to have a society in which each person can develop to the best of their potential and contribute to their society.
We also believe that Canada is a nation based on a philosophy of sharing the tremendous riches we enjoy, riches that are not enjoyed by many nations of the world. We believe in a sharing of those to the benefit of all Canadians so that we can fully prosper in this country and can fully contribute to the prosperity of others.
Those are principles that are very much being violated by this bill that is before the House today. What it says is that if you are strong, well educated, wealthy and able to stand on your own two feet, this society is going to
September 24, 1991

support you. But if you happen to be sick, elderly, poor, unemployed, psychiatrically disabled, or unable for one reason or another to fully care for yourself and to fully compete in a society that cares only about the strongest surviving, then this society has no place for you. That is what this bill is all about.
This country is an economic union, but it is more than that. It is a union of people who share a vision about social justice, about equality, about opportunities, about progressing and about making things better for people, not worse. Here we are taking a step backwards again.
What is being done in this bill is removing money from programs that allow people to participate in society despite short-term, temporary difficulties that make it hard for them to compete in the way others can. But it joins a parcel of actions by the government which show that only the strong and prosperous matter in this government's Canada. It joins actions against health funding in health programs, it joins cuts to education, all of which are essential investments in this generation and in the next generation and in our country. The fewer people we have who are capable of fully participating and fully developing their talents, the poorer our society is, not just those individuals, but all of Canada and all Canadians.
The Canada Assistance Plan represents the government's contribution to the prevention or alleviation of poverty. It also is much more than that. It is very much a contribution to the development of human beings in our society and therefore to the development of Canadian society. What this bill does is penalize those provinces that have been responsible in how they administer their budgets and how they manage. It penalizes those who contribute most to the prosperity of the rest of Canada through the equalization payments. But it penalizes the poorest within those communities. I can tell you, because my riding is perhaps a good example of this.
Being poor and being surrounded by people who live comfortably and well is very difficult and perhaps more difficult because the support services are not there. The support of the entire community is not there for you. People do not like being poor. They do not like being dependent.
I have worked with people in my community and I have found that it takes so little to break the cycle of poverty
Government Orders
for families. It takes so little in the way of programs that are geared toward mothers and children living in poverty, training programs that help young people who started out with a disadvantage in life to have a better opportunity.
We do not want to see programs that simply perpetuate poverty, but programs that give people a basic living while they move toward independence and also to provide a basis of support to those who for one reason or another cannot be independent. There are thousands and thousands of them in Canadian society. We have a healthier, saner society when we look after those who cannot look after themselves.
CAP contributes to basic necessities a very minimal living for people who temporarily need the help of society. We have seen how inadequate it is. We have seen how it is not enough to afford decent housing and so we need special housing programs. It is not enough to afford basic food and so we have food banks and volunteers and churches overwhelmed by the demand for extra support services. There are children going to school sometimes too undernourished to be able to profit from education and so we have in-school lunch and breakfast programs.
We have the implications of cutting back the contribution to the basic necessities of life. The implications fall most heavily on children. Poor children are four times more likely to drop out of school. Is that what we need in Canada? Is that what we need, that large proportion of our young people never finishing school, never developing the abilities they have, never being able to establish a stable and progressive employment record because they do not have the basic tools to work in Canadian society, to be steadily and well employed and remunerated enough to raise their own families? I do not think that is what we are looking for.
Mr. Speaker, you have already heard read into the record the health problems of poor children. I can tell you what happens in the schools when poor children enter kindergarten. They are stigmatized from the first day they enter school because their hair is not as glossy, their skin is not as bright, their clothes are not as nice, their shoes are not as shiny. By the time they have been in kindergarten for three months, before they are even six years old, those children already feel like failures. That is what we do to children when we let them grow up in poverty. That is what this bill will do.

Government Orders
We deprive children of any hope. We deprive their mothers of any hope. We deprive their brothers and sisters of any hope, and we deprive our society of any claim to being civilized and humane.
I know that the government seems very anxious to get itself out of any responsibility for making this a stronger and better society. It seems to think that the private sector is somehow going to take care of all of that for us. I do not believe that. If that were true we would not need governments. We would not need volunteer organizations. We would not need people who are looking constantly for ways to make this a country of opportunity for all Canadians and especially for all the children of Canada.
There is only one taxpayer's pocket, and the government can pretend that it is saving money with a bill like this. I am shocked that I have not seen, as the Prime Minister promised during the 1984 election, a similar massive review of subsidies to government. I cannot tell you how many tens of millions of dollars I have seen just coming across my desk in the last week in press announcements of $1 million here, $10 million there or $15 million there to companies in this country. Nobody has ever suggested that we should start cutting back on some of that money from the government side of this House. No, it is always the poor, is it not? It is always the children, the elderly and the sick that this government thinks should carry the burden of its mismanagement of the debt and the deficit.
I hope, in the better off communities within the three provinces that this government has targeted, social programs are going to survive because there are many communities in Ontario, B.C. and Alberta that have the resources to put in and make up where the government is not fulfilling its responsibility. But other programs in those communities will suffer. Programs that make up the basic necessities of food, clothing and shelter for families, other programs that help them get off welfare, that help them get training, that provide the extra support services needed to make life decent and liveable while they are on public assistance, those are the programs that will suffer. The extra little bit for dental care, for furniture, when a stove breaks, for back-to-school clothes for the children, those are what will suffer because there is only one taxpayer.
Many of those families now in Canada that are unemployed and poor will have to pay through their property taxes for what this government refuses to pay through a much more equitable tax base that it has access to. The property tax does not differentiate about whether you happen to be temporarily unemployed, on pension, poor or not. It is not based on income so you do not necessarily pay according to your means. So more of the burden will fall on fewer Canadians who can afford it.
The government by other actions has made the need for such services even more significant through the cutting back of benefits and unemployment insurance, which hits again most toughly in these three provinces. What it is doing is forcing more people on to welfare. As it is forcing more people on to welfare it is pulling back its own support from those very social programs that help people through a tough time and help them get back on their feet.
The bottom line is that this bill hurts not only those in the provinces that it is directly targeted at-and it is no easier to be poor in Ontario, B.C., Alberta or anywhere else, in many ways it is harder-but it hits our whole commitment to sharing in this country. People from the Atlantic provinces have spoken on this bill because they know that when we abandon that generosity of spirit that says all Canadians are entitled to a decent start and a decent chance, a helping hand over a rough period in their lives, then we start abandoning those segments of our country where we have to provide a little extra help.
It is important to all of us that Atlantic Canada be part of our country, not just to the people who live there. We have to be prepared to make it possible for the people of Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland to benefit fully from being part of Canada if we want to enjoy the benefits.
Sometimes that involves paying a price, and we in the Liberal Party recognize there is a price to being Canadian and we are willing to pay it. We resent very much that this government is abandoning our commitment as Canadians to one another.


Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Ottawa West on her usual fine job of presenting arguments in an organized fashion on behalf of Canadians and on behalf, particularly I think this morning, of Canadian children.
September 24, 1991

I just wanted to get a reaction to something we find so prevalent in the country today. We have seen it mentioned here this morning, I think, by everyone who has spoken in the House so far, and that is the cynicism that is out there in Canada today. One does not have to go looking for it, it is so obvious wherever one goes. It affects politicians at whatever political level they happen to be: municipal, provincial or federal.
I just wanted to get the hon. member's reaction to something which I think has happened within the last week. I think it has some bearing on what she is referring to here in her speech. This cynicism is out there. It is going to take the efforts of all of us. It is something like a disease that is creeping across the land. I think it is going to take the efforts of all of us to try and put any kind of a damper on it.
One aspect of this will affect the hon. member in particular. Almost on the eve of provincial elections being called in two provinces, Saskatchewan and British Columbia, we find this government announcing almost simultaneously, let us put it that way, that an organization which has been headquartered here in this province will be suddenly removed from Ontario and put in Saskatchewan where there is a provincial election coming up within the next five or six weeks.
At the same time something in the nature of a science centre, I guess one could call it-both of these projects are very worth while-was announced. Another project would be put in, dropped in, placed in B.C., and an election was called there.
This is a double-barrelled example of the purest form of cynicism that exists in this country. Surely the Canadian viewing audience can see through the political moves that are afoot there and see it with straight cynicism. If Canadians are becoming more and more cynical, surely this feeds right into the hands of the cynics, and I think is gnawing at the very heart of the nation.
I wonder if my hon. friend from Ottawa West would just comment on that. I know one of those particular things is very near and dear to her.


Marlene Catterall: I thank my colleague. Certainly we are well aware of and under-
Govemment Orders
stand the cynicism that is growing because we have seen a lack of trust in the government and a well deserved lack of trust. We have proclamations about the sacred trust of our social programs and yet we have-and it is not the first-a bill that is a very denial and destruction of the social programs that were being referred to.
Before every election this government referred to introducing a child care program. Three times it has reneged on that promise. We have seen money cuts to job creation, cutting opportunities for young people. We have seen the slashing of the registered home ownership savings plan so young people cannot afford their first home now. We have seen a surtax that was supposed to disappear when the GST came in. It has gone from 3 per cent up to 5 per cent instead of coming off. We saw Katimavik that gave new opportunities to our young people cancelled. We saw promises about not touching old age security. It was a sacred trust: "On the name and on the word and on the head of my mother I would not touch old age security". Whammo, six months later old age security and family allowances start being reduced and cut. Personal income tax has gone up. Those who are doing well in our society have more disposable income. Those who are poor have less disposable income, and now the feet are being cut out from under them again.
Yes, Canadians see themselves being bribed by then-own government to vote the way their government wants not only in federal elections. Oh, no, now they are down there interfering in provincial elections, trying to save Grant Devine's skin. Canadians see themselves being bribed by their own government to vote the way it wants, not only in federal elections, but now they are interfering in provincial elections, trying to save Grant Devine's skin from the negative effects he has created by moving Regina jobs out into rural Saskatchewan. They are moving federal jobs in to fill in the gap he has left, therefore disrupting two sets of families to achieve no positive results.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland-St. Catharines-Tho-rold):: Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague, the member who just spoke, in questioning the member who made the speech, in saying how much I enjoyed the remarks made by the member for Ottawa Centre.

Government Orders
There was some reference to the way poverty affects school children and I was wondering if the hon. member would perhaps take a more positive role and share with this House some of her ideas on the possibilities not only of cutting back on the moneys that are going in but perhaps inaugurating and instituting a program for younger children, school-aged kids, to be supplied with the basic fundamentals of life. I am talking very basically about at least a nutritious breakfast or something like that for those people who cannot afford it.
This problem is particularly acute in the larger cities, but not only there, and I am aware from my own background of having taught in schools that the problem does exist.
If the hon. member for Ottawa West would perhaps give us her views on that I would be most appreciative.


Marlene Catterall: I thank my colleague for the question. That is exactly the kind of program that local communities can introduce for their children if they have the resources to do it and if they are not being required to meet the federal government's obligations to meet basic necessities of life through welfare systems.
I think it is even more important to back off a step before that. The successful programs I have seen involved very young mothers before their children were of school age, working with them around their own selfworth and the importance of their role as mothers in raising the next generation so that their children do develop a sense of pride and self-respect, that the mothers learn some skills that perhaps they did not learn growing up in their own families, so that the community as a whole is working to help mothers and their young children develop a new sense of pride, get the training they need, and get out of the welfare system.
In my view, the first thing is the community supporting the role of the mother with her child so that the sense of self-worth comes from within.


Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I and my colleague voted against Bill C-69 when it was introduced in this House and we will be voting against Bill C-32 at third reading for a lot of reasons. One of the main reasons for opposing these two bills is that we believe
they in fact mark the beginning of the end of universal social programs as we know them in Canada.
According to many of the people who do research in the area and from all of the indications we received, by the year 2004, transfer payments to the provinces from the federal government in the areas of education and health care will be zero. There will be no transfer payments from the federal government to the provinces by the year 2004 in the areas of health care and education.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians know that when the federal government is not investing in the areas of education and health care it will not have the kind of say it wants to have in these two areas.
It surprises me somewhat that in the last budget the Prime Minister spoke very eloquently on the issue of education. He spoke about the question of objectives in the area of education. It was a very welcome statement at the time, but when one looks at the actions of the government in terms of Bill C-32 and before it, Bill C-69, one would question the commitment of the federal government to the educational question as well as to the health care question.
The whole issue is centred around reducing the deficit. There are three options which the government can take. One is to shut down operations and keep the taxes rolling for a few years. That will generate enough money and to pay the deficit.
Another option before the government is to do as it is doing now, reduce the services it is providing Canadians to a bare minimum and to attack many of the social health care programs, the social programs, that are veiy much needed in different parts of the country. It can sell national institutions such as Petro-Canada, Air Canada, VIA Rail and possibly CBC, et cetera, collect all this money and put it towards deficit reduction.
It can shut down a lot of the operations that are in place. We will still have a somewhat limping government, a somewhat half operational government, but we will still have a government and we will reduce the deficit.
September 24, 1991

There is a third alternative and that is the Liberal alternative, the Liberal way of reducing the deficit and revitalizing the economy in the country as a whole and that is through investment. We do not look at the question of putting money in the area of health care and education as being an expenditure, we look at it as being an investment in the future of Canadians.
The Minister of Finance and the Department of Finance in May 1990 said, when they spoke about the CAP spending restraint, that $147 million would be saved in the year 1990-91 and $154 million in 1991-92. The government at the time estimated that for the next five years it would be saving approximately $2.35 billion in transfer payments to Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. Then the Minister of Finance of the province of Ontario, Mr. Nixon, estimated that would cost the province about $150 million in 1990-91 and approximately $280 million in 1991-92. The latest estimate which came a year later clearly stated that the loss to the province of Ontario would be approximately $1 billion in one year.
As a result of this move, the total share of social services which are provided by our regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton will be reduced tremendously. In fact, the Social Planning Council of Ottawa-Carleton predicts that the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan will cut revenues by $596 million over two years in the Ottawa-Carleton region alone. That is a tremendous amount of money, considering the increase in the social welfare payroll on an annual basis in this region is at least 10 per cent every year.
When the federal government cut the transfer payments to the provinces, the provinces in turn cut their transfer payments to the municipalities, and the municipalities find themselves trying to pick and choose, as my colleague from Ottawa West indicated, whether to increase the property taxes or let the people go hungry.
This downloading is creating a generation of people on the welfare market. In many cases they are not receiving the kind of care they deserve because of lack of funding. On the other hand, the government both at the federal level and at the provincial level are just shifting the problem without trying to address it with some sort of strategic plan.
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, we must look at the impact of Bill C-32 on medicare and post-secondary education. Back in 1976, we had an agreement between the federal government and the provinces which stated that funding for post-secondary education was on a fifty-fifty basis. However, in 1986 the federal government started cutting the transfer payments to post-secondary education by 2 per cent every year, until the famous Bill C-69 arrived, which froze completely the transfer payments for 1990-91 and 1992 to the rate of inflation. From there it started going downhill.
These cuts in transfer payments have affected the delivery of services and programs at universities and colleges. For instance, the 1987-88 budget in the province of Quebec published a table which showed that the federal government would no longer put any money into medicare in Quebec by the year 2004, as I indicated earlier. That was with only the 2 per cent reduction in the federal funding formula which is presently being used. However, by 1990-91 the reduction would climb to 3 per cent and all the contributions would be frozen again for two years. All cash payments to all provinces, even the poorest, and that includes Atlantic Canada, will end some time around the turn of the century. Payment to Quebec will end by the year 1995 and in Ontario in 1998.
So as we are saying, less and less federal money for medicare and colleges and universities will put more of a financial burden squarely on the shoulders of the provinces. As a result, the federal government's ability to influence national standards and guidelines will be, as I indicated earlier, diminished.
When a survey was done across the country, 85 per cent of Canadians believed that medicare is our best and most valuable service.
When we look at the question of education, nobody could have put it any better than Jane Arnold, who is the chairman of the Canadian Federation of Students, when she said that education is a right and not a privilege. Bill C-69 and Bill C-32 take away the right and make education a privilege. Truly, Mr. Speaker, it will make education a privilege because, according to some statistics which were published in 1986, the higher education our children and our youth receive, the better chances they will have in receiving an education. The lower

September 24, 1991
Government Orders
education our youth receive, the less chances they will have in receiving an education.
Mr. Speaker, at a time when we have to put our emphasis on investment in our children and our youth, it is somewhat disappointing that the federal government is moving toward cutting many of the social and education programs that in fact would help in getting the country out of the difficulties we are in. There is no better investment the government can make than investing in our youth. There is no better way in dealing with reducing the level of deficit in Canada than investing in our youth.
Bill C-69 and Bill C-32 will be causing a lot of damage to the way we provide and offer our social programs across the country. Unfortunately CAP was the only remaining open-ended program that was cost shared between the provinces and the federal government. There was no limit on how much a province could choose to spend on some of the social services they are offering. The only limit they had is the fifty-fifty sharing agreement.
Mr. Speaker, when you look at the fact that approximately 40 per cent of the people who get welfare payments are children, research shows that poor children tend to have more health problems, greater difficulties in school and more involvement in crime than other children, and the cap on CAP makes sure that Canada does even less than in the past to combat these problems.
According to Dr. Robin Walker, president of the Canadian Council on Children and Youth: "About 40 per cent of social assistance recipients are children. The recent cap on CAP means that there will be less money to meet the basic needs of these children, to help their parents escape the welfare roles or to combat the negative effects of child poverty". He is absolutely right.
In fact, the situation is even more difficult when we look at the approximately 60 per cent of Indians living off-reserve in Canada who receive social assistance. A disproportionately large number of native children living off-reserve are cared for within British Columbia's child welfare system. We can conclude that aboriginal people in Canada represent one of the largest groups affected by restrictions on the amount of CAP transfer payments to the provinces.
Christopher McCormick, national spokesman on native issues for the Native Council of Canada, indicated: "Cuts to the Canada Assistance Plan will be a national disaster for aboriginal people who already live in Third World conditions".
On this subject matter one could speak on and on forever. The bottom line is that it is really up to this government to decide what it really wants to do. Does it want to invest in the future of Canadians now, or does it want to shut down operations and go home?


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a comment on Bill C-32. First, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Ottawa Centre, who has just put so well and so correctly all the damage this bill will cause.
I too of course am against this Bill C-32 because it will result in cuts to the provinces. We already know how badly the province of Ontario is mismanaged by the present New Democratic government that is there. Take that and add to it the cuts in transfer payments and we are in for some major difficulty. My fear is that these cuts to the provinces will result in our inability to train our population because a great Canadian once said the following about our ability to compete as a nation, Mr. Speaker, and I ask you to pay close attention to this. He said:
First, we require co-operation to re-establish the concept of working together as Canadians first. The concept around which this nation was built.
Second, we must make an effort to ensure that we have the capital required to finance national development in the 1980s, including a commitment from all sides to avoid the kind of vexatious and punitive policies that serve only to drive away Canadian foreign capital.
Third, we need a major national program to train and retrain the richest resource of all, our people, so that all Canadians may share in our development by working and by paying our own way.


An hon. member:: Who was that enlightened person?


Don Boudria: I am glad my colleagues just asked me who that great Canadian was, because I just quoted from the book Where I Stand written by one Brian Mulroney.


An hon. member:: That must have been a long time ago.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his comments. I think the statement made in the book is a true statement. There is a lot of merit to it. I think the challenge of the government is in fact to do the delivery that would match what is in the statement.
September 24, 1991

Government Orders
I would like to state that it is really appalling when we look at the state of our educational system. It is appalling when we see that in Canada we have in excess of 38 per cent of our population who have difficulty reading or writing, who are considered to be functionally illiterate.
Just on this point, the question of literacy and illiteracy and the lack of investment on the part of the government in our human resources, I would like to say that a business task force that was set up some time in 1986 or 1987 stated that the cost of this to our economy was approximately $4 billion and about $10 billion to society as a whole.
If we look at the deficit of $30 billion annually and we look at the cost of illiteracy alone of $10 billion, it would not take a genius to conclude that investing in human resources is a key to addressing the question of shortages and the question of deficit.
In my view, what we should be focusing on is dealing with the question of education in a very aggressive and outward looking way through consultation with the provinces of course and through consultation with institutions such as universities, colleges and school boards. Unless we do that it does not matter. We could keep throwing money at the problems day and night. That will not solve it. Unless we start looking at the human resources and trying to help them out to move forward, there is no way we could deal with the question of deficit.
Let me assure you that we could, perhaps by the year 1995-96, have a balanced budget, but that will not stay for very long because another difficult year like the years we had in 1981-82 and everything will be out of whack. We will have the same cycle we have gone through in 1981-82, and we are just coming out of 1990-91, all over again by the year 1997-98.
The whole answer to this question is through investment in our human resources.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his continued battle to try and bring the issue of illiteracy to this House of Commons and certainly trying to push the government on investing in human capital.
Mr. Speaker, through you to my colleague, I want to pursue a line of thinking. I have always contended that we are going to have to attract foreign capital to this country, which eventually will be one of the ways in which we create downward pressure on interest rates that ultimately will help our economy in every sector.
Foreign capital naturally looks at the levels of productivity. When we look at the levels of productivity in a company, or in a country, we do not only look at how hard people work. We look at how skilled the labour force is. One of the things that I hear over and over again from manufacturers, not only in my riding but other ridings across southern Ontario, is the difficulty they have in finding a skilled labour force. In order to have a skilled labour force we need a high level of literacy. We need people who understand the basics of reading and writing.
I would like to ask my colleague: Does he not think this investment in making sure that we become a more literate nation not only affects us in the short term in terms of our productivity, but ultimately will have an effect in terms of the whole economy and downward pressure on interest rates and the dollar?


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, no one could have put it more nicely than my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood. I want to thank him very much because he too is pushing for the same cause. No wonder he is a Liberal.
There is no doubt in my mind that more emphasis has to be put on the question of productivity. The reason why I say this is because it is really amazing that Canada is one of the largest exporters of wood, for instance, but we still import saws from Italy, among other countries, to cut the wood.
We have a very strong mining industry and we ship raw materials to Japan, Hong Kong and elsewhere, but we still import the machinery to gather the raw materials.
I totally agree with my colleague that to become more competitive we must spend more money in the area of research and development and in the area of education. We must, there is no doubt in my mind, make manufacturing a priority. All of these wonderful raw resources and raw materials, all of the resources that we have in Canada right now, over the next 15, 20, 30 or perhaps 50

Government Orders
years will be depleted. The only thing we will be left with is our human resources.
In closing, I totally agree with my colleague, unless investment now starts shifting and focuses on our human resources, that we have quite a challenge.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Before recognizing the next hon. member, I wish to inform the House that the five hours of consideration have now been completed and members will now speak for 10 minutes maximum, with no question and comment period.


Mr. Jack Whittaker (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt):: Mr. Speaker, this morning in the House of Commons we heard the Prime Minister putting forth the proposals of our cabinet in a document entitled Shaping Canada's Future Together. The thrust over the last couple of weeks that we have heard from the Prime Minister is a thrust toward co-operation of all parties and of all peoples within Canada, a thrust toward equality, a thrust toward giving people a voice in Canada.
I would like to quote from page 7 of the foreward of the document.
The document states as follows: "Canada must ensure that it is equipped to deal with the economic challenges of the next century. If we are to maintain our prosperity, ensure a high standard of living for our children and continue our effort to reduce the disparities that exist between the regions of Canada, one of the most important and enduring principles of Confederation, we must be prepared to work together more harmoniously and effectively. We must have an economic union that is both modem and truly functional".
Last year under Bill C-69 the government selected three provinces, British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario, out of the 10 provinces and two territories and proceeded to treat them differently, to discriminate if you will against these three provinces because they are the larger provinces and are considered to be have provinces within Confederation.
Under Bill C-32 it is proposing to extend that same unfairness toward the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario by extending the cap at 5 per cent on the Canada Assistance Plan payments, the payments that approximately 25 years ago it had agreed would be funded on an equal basis with the provinces.
The argument might be that these are the have provinces and therefore they can afford to give up some of what they have, but reality finds its way into this argument and shows that the argument is not a valid one.
The reality is that provinces such as Alberta and British Columbia and Ontario, when times are tough, get people moving from other provinces into those areas looking for employment. These people are often the same people who are without unemployment insurance benefits and go with the idea that they will be able to find employment.
In my riding of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt we have a very high unemployment rate and we have a high rate of people on social assistance for that very reason. It is a wonderful climate and during the summer there are jobs available in the Okanagan region particularly and in the Similkameen Valley in the fruit picking industry.
What often happens is that people come from other provinces without money in their pockets and they must turn to social assistance until they get a job. Then it falls on the people of British Columbia to pick up the tab for those from other areas of the province. That shows part of the unfairness.
If we couple what this government is doing now under Bill C-32 with Bill C-21, the Unemployment Insurance Act, where it cut down the qualification time, you are again hurting the people in my area because often, with the seasonal nature of fruit picking, they do not get the required number of weeks in order to apply for unemployment insurance.
What do they do when they are without work? They turn to the social assistance area for that assistance.
That is the problem that we have with this bill. It is not reflected in the 5 per cent of growth. Well over that 5 per cent I think is reflected on a year-to-year basis because places like Alberta and British Columbia particularly are areas in which people enjoy coming to look for employment and perhaps to live, particularly if they are not employed, because it is a wonderful climate.
By attacking these areas I think we are effectively attacking what they have set out here, the harmony, increasing the standard of living for all of us, by saying we are not going to assist you, we are not going to keep up with our end of the deal, a fifty-fifty split on the Canada Assistance Plan. We are not going to fund it. We are going to leave it to the taxpayers of your province.
September 24, 1991

Certainly in the larger cities, what happens is that it is the taxpayers of the municipalities who must pick up the added rate for the added people who are on social assistance.
Unfortunately, I am not going to have time to go into some of the things that have bothered me about Bill C-32 because of Question Period rapidly approaching, but I just want to point out-I will go into it in my next few minutes-that it is the children who are being hurt by this. We know that they are the single largest group of people getting social assistance.
For a government that has committed itself to assisting child poverty and doing away with it by the year 2000, I think it puts a bad light on this government in looking at child poverty when it thumbs its nose at those in Alberta, those in British Columbia and those in Ontario which have 50 per cent of the population of children who are presently living in poverty.


Mr. Speaker:: It being two o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to Statements by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 31
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, last Saturday, over 99 per cent of the voters in Armenia were in favour of independence, and there was a 95 per cent turnout. Yesterday, all the members of the Armenian Parliament sang their national anthem "Armenia free and independent". Mr. Speaker, today, all the members of this House must join me in congratulating the men and women of Armenia on their independence.
An historical agreement was reached yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when Armenian and Azerbaijani authorities agreed on an immediate cease-fire and the disarming of armed units in Nagorny Karabakh. So, Mr. Speaker, all
the refugees can finally go back home. We would like to offer our congratulations to the presidents of Russia and Kazakhstan, Boris Yeltsin and Noursoultan Nazarbaiev. This is the dawn of a beautiful day in Armenia for the people of Nagorny Karabakh. Hurrah for independence, Mr. Speaker!


NOVA SCOTIA CLAM COMPANY
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, the people of my constituency, like other Canadians, want to participate in renewing the Constitution, but their immediate concern is economic, a secure job so they can feed their families.
Since May, 250 unemployed workers of the Nova Scotia Clam Company have been waiting for clear leadership from this government to enable them to go back to work. All summer long, despite rally after rally, they have been kept in the dark.
Before the last election, this government created special rules to encourage this company to establish in the Strait of Canso. Since then, as in so many other cases in Atlantic Canada, the federal government has acted to undermine this company and abandon its workers.
In August, the Minister of Fisheries and ACOA threatened the viability of Nova Scotia Clam by permitting the new competitor, National Sea, to enter its market for off-shore clams.
Now, the company's clam vessel The Scotia Surf is being sold. Will the Minister of Fisheries and ACOA, with nearly $1 million invested in this project, object to this sale? Will he act in the dying hours to save these jobs? I await his answer, Mr. Speaker.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, from the cradle to the grave is synonymous with a lifetime.
From the cradle to the grave is also synonymous with unemployment insurance for many.

September 24, 1991
For too many Canadians, unemployment insurance is an inheritance passed on from father to son.
In 1940, an act was passed to provide for a national unemployment service which would provide a means of temporary assistance to people who were put out of work so that they could find other employment, retrain or take further education.
No country can continue to prosper if a large segment of its working force is content to work for only a few months each and every year.
More must be done to ensure the original intent of the Unemployment Act is honoured. Retraining must be a must.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government has unleashed a monster on the Canadian people. At 17 secret sites across the country, Agriculture Canada is conducting biogenetic engineering experiments that have the potential to wipe out crops and endanger human health.
The federal government is keeping these experiments secret, putting the interests of big chemical companies ahead of the health and welfare of Canadians.
Canadians have the right to know this is going on. Communities near experimental sites have the right to know. Farmers who have fields nearby have the right to know.
The short-term effects on other plants from accidental cross-pollination is potentially disastrous. The longterm effects of eating genetically altered crops developed to work with only specific pesticides is still unknown.
These experiments should have undergone a full environmental assessment complete with public hearings. An independent review board should be set up to oversee all test applications from Agriculture Canada. In addition, the government should set up a royal commission to determine the long-term impacts and repercussions of genetic bio-engineering.


RAILWAY CROSSING SAFETY
Mr. Bill Casey (Cumberland-Colchester):: Mr. Speaker, in July of this year, 12 year old Phillip French was tragically struck and killed by a train at the CN crossing at Stewiacke, Nova Scotia. This crossing has a long history of accidents resulting from a complex intersection of five roads with a rail line running right down through the middle.
For years the residents of Stewiacke have requested that barrier gates be installed. With this latest fatality, it is clear that these demands are justified and long past due.
The Minister of Transport and his officials have been very receptive to my presentations regarding this dangerous situation and have agreed to consider the information as quickly as possible and arrive at the appropriate decision.
I am now and will continue to urge the minister and his officials to move quickly and approve the request of Stewiacke for barrier gates before yet another tragedy occurs.


POTATO INDUSTRY
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, Prince Edward Island potato farmers have been facing a difficult situation since Agriculture Canada informed the United States of the presence of PVY-N in some potato crops.
They are looking for some innovative and positive steps from this federal government to assist them in making the best of this dismal situation.
According to Agra Europe Potato Markets Supplement, this year Moscow will be facing a potato shortage of at least 20 per cent below its need.
I urge the federal government, in an effort to make up for their lack of efficiency in dealing with the PVY-N crisis, to examine the possibility of purchasing, at a competitive rate, the Prince Edward Island potato stock and including it as part of Canada's aid package to the Soviet Union.

This way, Island potato farmers will benefit, Canada's international reputation will be enhanced, and we will be assisting Soviet citizens in this very difficult time for the Soviet Union.


PEARSON INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
Mr. Harry Chadwick (Bramalea -Gore-Malton):: Mr. Speaker if a new east-west runway is built at Pearson International Airport, the owners of the new Novatel Hotel might have a few things to say about it.
Four floors of their hotel will have to be removed to accommodate the flight path. There will be literally no room in the inn.
Is the airport encroaching on other land development? Are airport planners lacking in foresight or is Pearson International just running out of room?
My bet is that it is time officials started looking in the direction of Hamilton or Buttonville. It is high time airport officials paid heed to the wise words of their predecessors: "Build a second airport now".


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I stand here today shocked at what I saw in this House last night at 6 p.rm when Conservative members of Parliament performed a complete flip-flop on assisting Canadian farmers.
Late last month at the House of Commons Standing Committee on Agriculture, all members of all parties present voted and passed a motion calling on the government to assist and consider a third line of defence for Canadian farmers for the 1990-91 crop year. Last night the same motion came before the House. Where were the Conservatives? All but one Tory member reversed themselves and voted against the motion.
I am afraid when Tory MPs are forced to face Canadian farmers, they say one thing. But when it comes time
to providing action, the only thing farmers can count on from this government is hypocrisy.


ENVIRONMENTAL PARTNERS FUND
Mr. A. H. Harry Brightwell (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, September marks the end of the second year of operation for the Environmental Partners Fund program of Environment Canada. To date, over 480 environmental projects across the country have been approved. This represents a federal commitment of over $19.3 million to initiatives which are protecting, preserving and enhancing our environment. The program encourages small community groups, the private sector and other levels of government to form partnerships to help solve our environmental problems. Such groups have been able to raise an impressive $60.3 million. Last December, the green plan challenged all Canadians to participate in securing a healthy environment for our future.
In this regard, the Environmental Partners Fund was extended for a further two years and expanded to include community based awareness activities for products which encourage and lead people to further action.
I am proud of the response by responsible Canadians to help resolve our environmental problems.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, this government has recently named Toronto department store co-owner Frederick Eaton as High Commissioner to Britain. Of course, Mr. Eaton has been making the annual $1,000 contribution to the Conservative Party to qualify him as a member of the Club 500. His company contributed $81,463 in the 1988 election campaign. His company has also contributed $40,000 to the Conservative Party in the two subsequent years for which returns are public.
Obviously Mr. Eaton is far from being a career diplomat. Besides, if you are bom in the right families, six figure jobs are available to you by birthright.

Mr. Eaton is being shuffled off to London. He is certainly more comfortable there than having Eaton's shuffled off to Buffalo to catch up with cross-border shopping.
It remains, however, to be seen if the owner of Harrods will be appointed the next High Commissioner of Britain to Canada.


NATIONAL FAMILY WEEK
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, next week from October 7 to the 13, we will be celebrating National Family Week. Today's society is not without constraints for the Canadian family. There are economic problems, new values, a growing number of single parent families and more and more young parents ill equiped to succeed in their family life, to name a few.
When you think about it, our Canadian families are in dire need of protection and celebration. This year, the emphasis will be on family environment. This theme, first of a series of four, is designed to strengthen families and improve family life. Furthermore, 1994 has been designated as International Year of the Family, providing us an opportunity to reflect upon the problems and concerns experienced by some families.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian grain and oilseed and horticulture producers are facing the worst financial crisis in a generation due to the lowest commodity prices in history. These low prices are caused by the international grain trade war between the European Community and the United States.
Although Canada is not responsible for this trade war, Canadian farmers are being destroyed by it. The Canadian government exacerbated the hardship placed on farmers by reducing its farm support programs by $1.3 billion last year. It has exacerbated this situation this year by not providing adequate transitional assistance to a new safety net system for the 1991-92 crop year.
The Standing Committee on Agriculture unanimously called on the government to provide this emergency
transitional assistance in a resolution passed August 29, after hearing of the tremendous hardship farm producers have faced this year. The same resolution was voted down by the House of Commons last night because every Conservative MP, with the exception of the chairman of the agriculture committee, shamefully voted against this emergency help for Canadian farmers.
I call on this government to provide this emergency help now, before it is too late.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, Quebec's separation would certainly necessitate a renegotiation of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement. Because Quebec did not sign the free trade agreement, it derives all of the advantages, but is not directly bound by it. A new free trade agreement would require the agreement of three parties: Quebec, the United States and the new Canada.
In return for signing a new trade agreement with Quebec, the United States would undoubtedly want the elimination of all of the restrictions on American ownership of Quebec businesses, the unlimited right for Americans to bid on Quebec government contracts and perhaps common environmental standards. In return for signing a trade agreement with Quebec, the new Canada would undoubtedly want the right to buy Quebec power at domestic Quebec prices and a say in Quebec's fiscal and monetary policies that impact on the repayment of the present Canada's national debt.
Would it not be ironic if in order to get a trade agreement, Quebec had to hand back more sovereignty than it had gained by separation?


Mr. Lawrence MacAulay (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Prince Edward Island are very concerned about medicare in Canada. The Canada Health Act was put in place to ensure that Canadians across the land receive proper medical attention. In 1986, the government decided to change the funding for medicare in Canada. The National Council of Welfare indicates that by the year 2000, there will be close to $100 million cut
September 24, 1991

from the medicare and post-secondary education budget by this government.
The government has changed the path of medicare. I am afraid we are going to see hospital beds closing and doctors leaving for richer parts of the nation, leaving for better pay and where the bigger dollars are. This is supposed to be a country from sea to sea to sea. If we allow this to happen then there will only be proper medical care for the wealthy in the richer parts of the nation.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: This year, Mr. Speaker, Greece will celebrate its 2500th anniversary of democracy, which had its origin in ancient Athens, with a three day celebration beginning tomorrow, September 25.
Announcing details of the celebration, the Speaker of the Greek Parliament, Mr. Athanassios Tsaldaris said: "Democracy is the only regime in European countries today which brought about peace and surpassed blocks and divided walls." He went on to say that "everyone is now turning to parliamentary democracy as the sole institution that ensures the freedom of the individual and enables him to cope better with his problems."
The highlight of the three day celebration will be a special ceremony on Pnyx Hill opposite the Acropolis in Athens where a replica of a marble stela inscribed with the ancient law for the protection of democracy will be installed.
As well, an international philosophy symposium will take place entitled "Greek Democracy and Its Message to Modern Societies".
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I am speaking for all members of the House in offering our congratulations to the government and the people of Greece on this historic occasion and as well as my hope that this anniversary will act as a positive omen concerning the future of our country.


PROPERTY RIGHTS
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, for centuries the right of a man or woman to own property
Oral Questions
has been at the very heart of democracy. This right protected people from being exploited and from having their wealth taken away without due process of law.
In 1982, Canadians lost the right to own their own homes and be protected against governments when they wanted to expropriate land. The old Canadian Bill of Rights had given us that protection, but the Charter of Rights, which replaced it, was silent on the issue. That was wrong.
For the last nine years, Canadians have been among the only people in the western world without property rights.
This morning it was fulfilling to hear the Prime Minister propose to restore property rights and enshrine them in our country's Charter of Rights.
My congratulations to the government for having the political courage to do what is right. Average, middle class homeowners have sustained a victory out of the new Canadian federation.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
This morning we heard the Prime Minister say he wants Canada to be a real economic union, and we are happy with that, but he has not backed up these words with real power to make it happen. Either you have an economic union or you do not have one. As the fishermen of Beausejour say: "Either fish or cut bait."
How can we have a real economic union when up to three provinces and up to half of the Canadian population can opt out of the economic union?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friend seems to suggest that because there is a provision for provinces to opt out, that would destroy the concept of an economic union.
Well that, of course, would run counter to the argument that he has been making for 10 years where he provided for an override, the equivalent to opting out, of fundamental rights, where a province could opt out of

September 24, 1991
Oral Questions
the fundamental rights without destroying the Constitution in consequence.
The argument that my hon. friend is making is extremely illogical, inconsistent with everything he said. In fact, the provisions clearly strengthen the economic union of Canada.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister wants Canada to become an economic union, but when we look at the document he tabled today, the federal government will have less power than the European Community in Brussels. I want to ask the Prime Minister once again: How can he say we will have an economic union in this country when three provinces and a majority of Canadians can opt out of this union?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I beg to differ with what the Leader of the Official Opposition said about Brussels. The two situations are not identical. We must compare them objectively, and we are prepared to do so before the parliamentary committee.
What the document tabled this morning proposes to do is to eliminate the barriers that exist across Canada and make this country an economic union to be reckoned with, by removing as much as possible any obstacles to domestic trade.
This is one of the proposals the Government of Canada will submit to the members of the committee. If this proposal is less than perfect and the hon. member has any suggestions on how it could be improved, he may wish to appear before the parliamentary committee. If his suggestions are an improvement, the members of the committee will consider them, and Canada will benefit.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I hope and pray that we can make amendments. I would like to go back to the Charter of Rights that the hon. Prime Minister referred to earlier.
He said in this House, and I heard it very clearly, that the Charter of Rights was not worth the paper it was written on because we had the notwithstanding clause. I am happy to note today that he is making the notwithstanding clause stronger than before because under the proposition you will need 60 per cent of the population.
The requirement is stronger if you want to use it and it will be reduced to a period of three years. We are happy with that because it will make it more difficult to be used, but we would keep it while the Prime Minister said he wants to scrap it.
I want to ask the Prime Minister if in his own personal view it is the intention of this government to make sure that the existing rights under the charter will be the same with this constitutional proposition.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there will be no change in individual rights with regard to any matters raised by my friend as a result of these constitutional proposals.
Should my hon. friend find any in a real way, I am sure he would want to draw it to the attention of the commission and it will deal with it.
I never suggested this morning that the document we were tabling was perfect. It is certainly a perfectible document, but there are no circumstances under which we seek to diminish individual rights.
With regard to the notwithstanding clause, my hon. friend I think is in error. What we did this morning was suggest a means whereby the utilization of the notwithstanding clause is made more difficult. I repeat what I have said from the beginning, that I believe that if a constitution were designed to protect individual rights, then obviously any instrument given to a province to override those individual rights was inconsistent with the original objectives in the first place. That has always been my intention, my view of it.


An hon. member:: Thke it out.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says to take it out.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Over my dead body.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Leader of the Opposition says over his dead body. I view this as an unacceptble clause, but we want to make it more difficult for people to use.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. The government has just tabled a new proposal for the recognition of Quebec's distinct character in the Constitution. This morning, speaking on behalf of our party, our leader made it clear he was in favour of enshrining Quebec's distinct character in the Constitution. However, we want this to be done in very clear terms so that everyone understands what is meant, both Quebecers and the rest of Canada.
September 24, 1991

My question to the Prime Minister is this: By doing this, by proposing to enshrine the distinct character in the Charter, does he intend to make the distinct society subject to the Charter or does he intend to give additional powers to Quebec?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is all in the text included in the document you received this morning.
In June 1990, all the legal experts concluded that enshrining a provision of this kind in the Canadian Constitution would not have the effect of granting additional powers to a province.
Perhaps I may point out to the hon. member that the distinct society will be mentioned twice in the Constitution: in the Canada clause and in the Charter. Its use will be compatible with the provisions of the Charter.
So, there it is. And I think this reflects the real situation, something my honourable friend has always wanted. It gives Quebec a normal instrument to promote this distinct identity.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, obviously, we will have to ask the minister for clarifications at the earliest opportunity in the parliamentary committee, because the Prime Minister's answer seems to cloud the issue more than explain it and seems to leave it up to the Supreme Court whether additional powers are involved or not.
I do not think that is the way to proceed. If we want to do something positive, let us do so directly, not give something today that could be taken away tomorrow by the Supreme Court, or if no additional power is involved, let us have the honesty to say so clearly. We will return to that tomorrow with the minister responsible.
But I would like to remind the Prime Minister that one of Quebec's most basic demands has been the veto right. Our party's nine proposals recognized the importance of giving Quebec a veto right and the way to do it was by giving a regional veto to all regions.
This morning, the Prime Minister said nothing about this. Did he forget about Quebec's veto?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, let me answer my hon. friend. I referred to a
Oral Questions
document released in June and I will read it, because it is an important question.

"In our opinion, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be interpreted in a manner consistent with the duality, the distinct society clause or the proposed constitutional amendment, but the rights and freedoms guaranteed thereunder are not infringed or denied by the application of the clause. They continue to be guaranteed subject only to the reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
It is signed by six of Canada's most outstanding constitutional lawyers and accepted last year by all parties.

Now I think that is quite a clear answer to my friend's first question.
As for the veto right, my friend spoke about Quebec's veto right-at least, I think so. Is that right?


André Ouellet: That is what I am asking you!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I did not forget, but is my friend talking about a veto right for Quebec? Yes, all right. Because Quebec's veto right was lost by the Parti Quebecois in 1982 when they gave up Quebec's traditional veto. It was recovered in the Meech Lake Accord under the amending formula.
If you look at the document tabled this morning, you will see that after the 7/50 provisions, the amending formula will apply. The reason the concept of a regional veto, which is a defensible proposal, was not accepted is that the Premier of Alberta, for example, said outright that his province would also demand a veto, not just Ontario.

But Alberta was entitled to have its own veto, not just a regional veto. If anyone was going to get a veto, Alberta was going to get a veto as were the other provinces. We agree with that because we agree with that concept of equality.

Oral Questions


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
This morning in the constitutional document, the Prime Minister outlined clearly the Conservative Party's perspective of an economy for Canada, moving into the future.
The document talked about financial institutions and fiscal control. It talked about the rights of capital, but it was silent on the initiatives and a proactive approach on employment and on regional inequality. A nation is about more than just the economy, it is about facilitating Canadian families and their future.
The Prime Minister has articulated an economic agenda. Surely, it is equally important to articulate a people agenda.
Will the Prime Minister seriously consider a social charter which would give substance and form to the inherent rights of Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend refers to a proactive approach. Indeed, she is quite right. In terms of the economy, as I indicated this morning, one cannot segregate developments in the economy from considerations in the Constitution.
That is why I know that she will be well pleased to learn that interest rates have dropped since the budget by almost two percentage points in March. Growth has accelerated to something in the neighbourhood of 5 per cent for the last quarter and inflation next year, if we keep on track, may be down to 3 per cent. That is extremely good news for the kinds of objectives being sought by my hon. friend, namely, job creation and social justice.
With regard to the concept of a social charter which was put forward by the premier of Ontario, I suppose this is something that the committee itself would want to examine to see if it might be advantageous to Canadians in the long term. I do not know. I have not examined his proposals in great detail, but I know that Premier Rae proposes to play a constructive and helpful role in our national debate, and I look forward to his participation and that of my hon. friend.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, this round of constitutional discussion is about the economy, it is about the future of Canada's social programs. This party and myself would like to see us, as a nation, also say that we have a goal of full employment and that our institutions are going to be directed to that end, as well as the other important issues discussed in this proposal.
Among the proposals put forward today was that much of our economic decision-making could be turned over to a council of the federation. Obviously, it is an idea that has to be further explored, because, as is stated in the proposal, it could be taking fundamental economic decisions away from this House and institutionalizing them in an institutionalized back room if we are not careful.
Will the Prime Minister commit to an open process for any economic change that includes full participation of the provinces, the territories as voting members and the aboriginal people who are, of course, acknowledged in his proposals as having self-government in the future?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the proposal with regard to a council of the federation would not have to do with an agency dealing with, as I think the Leader of the New Democratic Party said, most of our economic decisions. What it would focus upon, however, is that wide range of very important areas where there is either no agreement between federal and provincial governments, or where there have been agreements in principle that have not been brought into practice, as is the case with too much of what has happened with regard to the elimination of trade barriers and other things.
I think is a very interesting, important new proposal. I hope it will be looked at seriously by the committee. Certainly, we intend to make it as open as possible, because we think that one of the things we have to do here is open up the budget processes of federal and provincial governments. Open up the processes of federal-provincial consultation, involving both what we are doing and what the provinces are doing and try by the reforms we are proposing to this House and to the Senate, to make these institutions far more accessible to and far more representative of the people of Canada. That kind of openness is exactly what we are seeking.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. As I said earlier, our institutions must have a broad enough mandate. About the proposal concerning the mandate of the Bank of Canada, stated simply as to achieve and preserve price stability, it seems to me that it is to take a very narrow view, Mr. Speaker. The Bank's mandate should be much broader to curb these outrageously high unemployment rates in Montreal, Cap-Breton and elsewhere in Canada. It should also be designed to make sure that full employment is possible and that the needs of farmers and small businesses are met.
Is the government willing to broaden this mandate?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we did propose major changes regarding the Bank. But if the leader of the New Democratic Party has proposals to make, she will have the opportunity of doing so before the Committee. I think it is very important to remind the specific purpose of a central bank in a system such as ours. There is a problem at present: it is not as open as it should be to the provinces and others groups involved who are affected by the decisions the Governor makes.
That is why we proposed some major changes. For the first time, the appointment of the Governor of the Bank of Canada will be subject to the ratification of an elected Senate. That will give great power to the regions. As far as other groups are concerned, there will also be changes which could require much more extensive consultations at the regional level regarding the Governor of the Bank's policies.


BANK OF CANADA
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a question for the Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs. In the document tabled today, the government says it intends to amend the existing law to limit the mandate of the Bank of Canada to enhancing and preserving price stability.
I ask the minister, why does the government want to change the existing law to remove the present requirement that the Bank of Canada concern itself with trade, production and employment and not just price stability
Oral Questions
and inflation? Why is the government saying to the people of Canada that its constitutional view of the impact of the Bank of Canada is that it just doesn't care when it comes to jobs?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we want to take this matter to committee where things can be discussed in some detail is so that misunderstandings, I am sure innocent misunderstandings such as that expressed by my colleague, will not prevail.
We are making proposals with regard to the bank which have to do with making clear what its central purpose is, which have to do with ensuring a greater harmonization between fiscal and monetary policy. We are making other proposals that will try to create by consensus a situation in the country where the fiscal policy' of provinces and the fiscal policy of the national government follow the same course.
If the hon. member has other improvements to suggest, we will welcome his participation in the committee.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I ask the minister to take a look at his own document. It says that the "Government of Canada proposes to amend the Bank of Canada Act to make it clear that the mandate of the bank is to achieve and preserve price stability".
Then, I ask him to look at the preamble of the Bank of Canada Act which says that the bank is supposed to concern itself with "the general level of production, trade, prices and employment".
The minister has failed to give any explanation as to why it wants to limit the mandate of the bank so that it will not be able to concern itself with jobs.
I ask the minister to give a clear answer. If he wants to take time to familiarize himself with his own document, we will be happy to let him do that.


Charles Joseph Clark: Thanks, Herb. I appreciate these gentlemanly exchanges across the floor of the House, Mr. Speaker.
Let me be very clear. We are not seeking to limit the role of the bank. What we are trying to do is clarify that role. That will be made clearer when my colleague, the Minister of Finance, lays before a meeting of federal and provincial finance ministers a background document on the matter.

September 24, 1991
Oral Questions
We are also trying to undertake other changes with respect to the functioning of the bank that will cause it to be more acceptable to and more reflective of concerns in the country. Those are changes that are long overdue. We hope that we will have the support of the hon. member and his party in achieving them, and if they have other suggestions for improvement, we will certainly welcome them.


SKILLED LABOUR
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (York North):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most important elements of global competitiveness is the availability of a skilled labour force. At a time when a company like Siemens Electric is questioning Canada's ability to supply skilled workers to meet its future labour demand of 9,000 new jobs, I would like to ask the Prime Minister what measures this government has taken to guarantee that Siemens Electric Limited will have the skilled labour it requires.


Hon. William C. Winegard (Minister for Science):: Mr. Speaker, you can see the amount of skilled labour we have on this side of the House. We have any number of people prepared to answer that question.
One of the things we are doing, of course, in the whole competitiveness agenda is to look at ways in which the educational system might be more amenable to having the kind of programs that will provide the people needed for that company.
As well, in terms of some of the engineering groups and the science groups and the technician groups, we have already taken steps to benefit those groups. We have more on the board and we will take them.


Maurizio Bevilacqua: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Clearly, the minister does not understand the gravity of the issue. If this government's training strategy is so effective, I ask the minister why a company such as Siemens Electric, which is a world leader in the field of
electronics, would express major concerns and doubts about Canada's ability to supply skilled workers.


William C. Winegard: Mr. Speaker, that doubt is being expressed in every one of the industrialized nations because we all face the same problem. We do not have enough people going into the technical streams either in our technical colleges or in our universities. That is why many of the government programs are designed to encourage students to move into those sectors.


MEME BREAST IMPLANTS
Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, last night 200 angry women met in Montreal to share their experiences with breast implants. We heard new anecdotal evidence of the debilitating secondary effects many women face from implants.
Now that Surgitek, the manufacturer of the Meme implant has taken all of its breast products off the market, will the Minister of National Health and Welfare finally undertake a judicial inquiry into why his department has not even now put a stop to this medical experimentation on Canadian women?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I met this summer with the member for Mission-Coquitlam and other women and I think it was clear at that time, and is still clear that as far as the health of women is concerned, we have done what was possible to do in light of the information which was provided to the department and myself.
In terms of the regulation itself, she knows very well that I asked the department to report to me in terms of the way the Meme breast implant was grandfathered in 1982.
The situation now is that I am waiting for the report in terms of regulation, but it is very delicate, Mr. Speaker, to refer in terms of health if there is no more information than my colleague had this summer.
I repeat, if there is any information that we do not have in the department which we can consider for review at another time, we will do that, but in light of the information we have, I repeat what I said: everything is
September 24, 1991

being dealt with in the way it should be by the department, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. These women cannot afford to wait. This is a serious problem. The minister's response is contrary to past precedents of this government. It is contrary to logic and it is cruel.
The question which I wish to pose to this minister is the following. How can he reconcile his response that we have just heard, knowing full well that this government spent millions of dollars to help thousands of homeowners take urea formaldehyde out of their homes, but will not spend one red cent to have women take these implants out of their bodies? How does he reconcile that?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the member for Chambly knows very well that if there is anything against the company and if there is any fault at the moment where there was a breast implant and the product was not what it should be-it has been done by a woman from Vancouver. She went to court and asked for a decision.
The member asks me why we do not put up the money. We are talking about the health of women with breast implants. The information we have so far is that the health question has been considered by the department in buying, and withdrawing the product from the market. It has been done in the way that it should be.
If those two members have any information in terms of health, they can provide it to the department or any scientist,, which could change the decision already made, then for God's sake they should give the information to the department.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lievre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence, perhaps his Minister of State or the Prime Minister himself can answer.
Given that the survival of agriculture, especially for joint plans in Quebec such as the one for the dairy industry, is based on the principle that production costs will be taken into account and farmers will have a
Oral Questions
reasonable income, can the Minister or the Prime Minister assure farmers that this essential criterion will always be maintained for our farmers?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if my hon. friend wants to know whether there is anything in the proposals tabled this morning to-If the question is whether we will maintain our previous programs in spite of the document tabled this morning, the answer is yes.
My hon. friend from Papineau, who is also an expert on agriculture, tells me that this issue is mainly up to GATT. That being so, I would be pleased to answer a supplementary.


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec farmers' union, the UPA, is very concerned about their future because the Minister of Agriculture is always talking about productivity without considering production costs. That concerns them and they would like to have an answer about it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, productivity applies to everyone.
But mentioning productivity in no way undermines the ability of the UPA or its members to meet the competition that they face now. Nothing was said or done to keep farmers in Quebec or elsewhere from maintaining their production. The Canadian government will try to find new markets for them.


FISHERIES
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The worst ice conditions in history have completely wiped out the fishery in Labrador.
The minister's own industrial adjustment committee, which wrote the minister this month says two things: first of all, that Labrador has been worse hit than any other area; second, that there is a very small window of opportunity to help those people as they never needed help before.
Will the minister agree to the recommendation of his industrial adjustment committee and set up an aid program so that work programs can begin by October 1? Will he give that undertaking today?

September 24, 1991
Oral Questions


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, the situation and the question describing it today are not new, because year after year, some coasts remain icebound a little longer than would be desirable.
Several programs and million of dollars have been made available to fishermen to deal with these situations.
Last year we announced special funding. Through a partnership established with the provinces and the private sector, we intend to set up a strategy to help fishermen who need assistance. In any case, the department's own programs are available to fishermen, and that is what we are working on.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, let me make it clear to the government that this is not an ordinary year.
These are the worst ice conditions in living memory. This is not an ordinary year. Is the government going to help those people or not? Aid delayed is aid denied. If it is not done this week, do not bother because we cannot take the aid after this. Do it this week.


Monique Vézina: I can only repeat to the hon. member that every attempt is being made in co-operation with the provinces and the various parties concerned so as to provide an appropriate response as quickly as possible, and we are working on a number of permanent solutions.


PORCUPINE CARIBOU
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
I am sure that the minister is aware that the 180,000 caribou in the Porcupine herd migrate across the Northwest Territories and Yukon to calve on the Alaskan coastal plain known as the 1002 lands.
Since the survival of this herd will be severely compromised by the proposed development of gas and oil in this unique and irreplaceable caribou maternity zone, will the minister tell us what steps she has taken to encourage the Prime Minister to raise the urgency of protecting this area from industrial development with President Bush, since it is at that level that this proposal will have to be stopped?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we do have concerns about the matter that the hon. member raised.
They have been raised with the United States. My colleague, the Minister of Energy, and I have had discussions about this and the implications for Canada and the U.S., as well as with the Minister of the Environment.
We have raised this with the United States, and we will continue to do so.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Prime Minister.
Since President Bush has included the development of the 1002 lands in his energy proposal for the United States, will the Prime Minister today publicly call upon President Bush not to proceed with developments of gas and oil on the 1002 lands, because it would contravene both the spirit and the letter of the 1987 agreement signed between the Prime Minister and his good friend in the White House.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have called on the United States to designate the coastal plain as a wilderness area.
We are concerned about protecting the sensitive habitat of wildlife there, and we are also concerned about the economic livelihood and the traditional culture of people who live in the region.
I do not know just when the oil leasing and the refuge will reach the floor of either the House or the Senate, but our embassy is following developments very closely. We are in touch with them and we are making strong representations.
September 24, 1991

Oral Questions


CANADIAN FLAG
Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State regarding the use of our flag, our national symbol, to promote our country.
Thousands of Canadians and businesses use the maple leaf to foster tourism, trade, identity and unity-yes, unity-but guess what. There is an official in the protocol directorate of the secretary's department that appears to be harassing and indeed sometimes threatening legal action against companies which use their flag.
It is ridiculous. It is unbelievable.
Mr. Speaker, through you to the minister: What is wrong? Why is it illegal for Canadian business to use the Canadian flag to urge Canadians to shop in Canada, to support the Canadian economy and to promote the tourism industry in Canada?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to state that we administer section 9 of the Trade Marks Act.
The purpose of that section in the Trade Marks Act is to prevent people from misrepresentation or misleading advertising, using the symbols of Canada.
After these particular cases that my colleague has raised were brought to my attention, I asked officials to review all outstanding cases and in the two cases that were mentioned in the media recently, that of Banff Lifts Limited and Superstore, I had my office personally contact the companies to say that it was totally proper for them to use the flag, encouraged them to do so, and assured them they would have a letter signed by myself before the end of the week.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. With the announcement last week by the Minister of National Defence concerning the need to cut out excess infrastructure within the Canadian Armed Forces, does this mean that the $36 million naval reserve facility announced in July will now not be built?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the task force that is to develop criteria for restructuring the Canadian forces will not extend its activities to existing programs.


Coline M. Campbell: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister.
Does this mean the minister will put the new naval reserve facility on hold until his committee has reviewed all the excess infrastructure to see if there is not some place like CFB Cornwallis for this?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I may refer the hon. member to my previous answer.


ILLICIT DRUGS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General.
In metro Toronto illicit drugs are of great concern to parents. Today there are reports of the takeover by drug dealers of yet another neighbourhood near Bloor and Lansdowne. Repeatedly the federal government has been asked by Toronto metro council and metro police to return a share of funds seized by the RCMP in drug arrests. This money could be returned to metro authorities for education, crime prevention, rehabilitation programs, and anti-drug enforcement activities.
I ask the Solicitor General whether he will act on such proposals in support of the fight against illicit drugs on the streets and in the schools in urban Canada.


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: welcome the interest of my hon. friend in this issue. I think every member of the House is interested in the issue.
This morning I met with Governor Martinez of the United States, the drug enforcement officer there, and we discussed several issues. My friend makes a valid point. In fact, we are trying to improve our efforts on seizure of assets and the transfer from seizure to forfeiture. The point has been made by various police

Oral Questions
officials and mayors around the country that they would like to have some of the funds returned for expenses. I think that is a valid point, and I intend to look into it.
As to whether or not we would go so far as to look into drug programs, I am not sure we are at that point, but we are looking at the possibility of returning funds spent on investigations to the various jurisdictions.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: I would like to thank the Solicitor General for his reply and ask him what additional measures he envisages in the fight against illicit drugs so as to bring to an end this very disturbing and growing pattern across the nation.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend knows, the Prime Minister has been taking a lead on this issue.
Yesterday in Montreal he made reference to the improved co-operation among the various authorities we have, the RCMP, National Defence, the Coast Guard, and customs, in the effort to crack down on this very serious problem. I would also point out to my friend that the national drug strategy which the Prime Minister initiated is a five-year preoccupation. It expires in 1992 and is currently being reviewed to see what improvements we can make to it.
some provinces and including for women who have concerns about the property right and other matters, would have to be taken into account.
We in proposing this are confident that we can find legal language which will take account of those concerns and allow us to place in the charter the right to property in a way that will be effective on main street.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs is about the social charter idea.
In the proposal tabled in the House this morning there is nothing on a social charter. I wonder if the minister can explain to the House precisely why he failed to propose in the paper this morning the willingness to put in the Constitution of Canada a guarantee for medical care, education, clean environment, housing and a job for ordinary Canadians when these have become in a modem society pretty fundamental rights of citizenship.


PROPERTY RIGHTS
Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, part of the proposed constitutional changes tabled this morning by our Prime Minister dealt with restoring Canadians' right to own private property.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would want to look at the specific references in the Canada clause. He would also want to consult members of his own party, the party leader in British Columbia Mr. Harcourt, being one of them who has expressed concerns about handing over to the courts the very substantial power that would be involved in a social charter.

My question is for the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs. If enshrined in the Constitution, exactly what impact would this right have on the lives of individual Canadians on main street in my riding?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is early to answer that question. The matter will have to be looked at in the committee. There will be legal drafts brought forward at the committee stage. I think that various implications, including for
I have no doubt that that matter, as others that are divisive in various parties, will be discussed within the NDP and that when the hon. member takes his usual active and constructive role in the committee he will have some proposals to put forward.
If we think something workable is put forward, we are certainly prepared to look at it, although I would not want that answer to be interpreted as suggesting that we are looking to the inclusion of a charter of the kind that was proposed by the premier of Ontario. If there is something in that line that can be made acceptable, I am sure the committee will be prepared to consider it.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker,
I am sure that the minister did not deliberately mislead the House. The premier of Ontario was not suggesting a social charter where the Supreme Court was the final arbitrator. There are other mechanisms to enforce the social charter.
I have a supplementary question for the minister. In light of the fact that we have had some cutbacks recently in federal government funding-and I am talking about the rate of increase in funding for post-secondary education, medical care, welfare, and indeed some cutbacks at the provincial level in some provinces during a recession when people need it most-I would like to ask the minister: without a social charter in the Constitution, what guarantees will the people of this country have that these important social programs will remain universal, affordable and accessible to all Canadians regardless of where we may live?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, one of the most effective guarantees, probably the most effective guarantee in the real world, is to have a growing Canadian economy able to compete in the world. That is one of the reasons we have proposed an economic union proposal in our document.
I was rather surprised this morning to hear his leader raise some questions about the idea of the economic union, because I do not think one can be taken seriously about social issues unless one is prepared to take the economic decisions and put in place the economic mechanisms which let us have the wealth that fund the social programs this country has been so proud of.
  
[Translation\


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of a parliamentary delegation from Burkina-Faso, in Canada to study the electoral process and the workings of a pluralistic democracy.
fEnglish]
I also wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of Dr. Zdenek Kessler, member
Government Orders
of the Presidium of the Czech and Slovak Parliament and Chairman of Constitutional and Legislative Committee.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee F; and the amendment of Mr. Vincent (p. 2536).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt has two minutes left. I ask for the collaboration of all hon. members-

- so that we can hear the end of the hon. member's speech.


John R. (Jack) Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, when my speech was interrupted prior to Question Period, I was just talking about the difficulty that the CAP under Bill C-32 was going to cause for children.
I point out once again that while Canada is one of the wealthiest nations in the world there are close to one million children living in poverty. We are second only to the United States in the level of child poverty in the industrialized world. It appears that these children are being asked to pay for the loopholes that are offered big corporations.
I say that because it appears that over the last few years profitable corporations in Canada have increasingly being paying less and less of their share, and yet this government would have us believe that in fact it is our social programs that are causing us to have this massive deficit and debt that we have.
I point out that the Statistics Canada figures in April show that taxes had increased the most from 1988 to 1989 for those on the second lowest rung of the income ladder, an increase of 1.1 per cent, while at the same

Government Orders
time those in the highest income quintile saw taxes rise only .9 per cent and those in the second highest quintile, .3 per cent.
I do not know whether that is what the government speaks of when it says in the document Shaping Canada's Future Together that I referred to earlier, in the Canada clause, that it will make a commitment to the well-being of all Canadians. It seems to me that the commitment that this government has made over the last seven years has been a commitment to fill the pockets of those who are most able to afford to pay their share and take from the pockets of those who are unable to speak for themselves.


Mr. Robert D. Nault (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to enter the debate on Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan.
This act proposes to extend the 5 per cent ceiling on the rate of growth in transfers to the Canada Assistance Plan from two years to five years. This cap is a cap on a cap considering the fact that not too long ago, in the earlier nineties, Bill C-69 was presented to the House on June 12, 1990. It was the first cap on the Canada Assistance Plan, and we are now looking at a bill, Bill C-32, which is a further cap on this cap.
The cap applies only to the provinces which do not receive the equalization payments. At present these provinces are British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. As a member from Ontario and specifically northern Ontario, a region that has high unemployment, a region that has a cycle and troughs of high unemployment, low unemployment, economic boom and bust, this particular piece of legislation will be very detrimental to the well-being of the citizens of Kenora-Rainy River.
I think it is important to take a look at this in its proper context. The government wishes in its propaganda and information put out to the public to suggest that what it is doing is perfectly civilized because in essence the three provinces that it is dealing with are the three richest provinces.
Let us take a look at it a lot closer and look at the amount of dollars that the government is funnelling from the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. That amount is $2,135 billion of federal transfers over the five-year period. That amount as far as Ontarians are concerned is a very conservative estimate.
The present Government of Ontario has suggested that this year alone it suspects that it will cost it about $1 billion to replace the dollars that have been held back by the federal government because of this cap under Bill C-69 and now the cap on the cap under Bill C-32.1 am sure it will be passed because of what the government is proposing to do with the usual boot. It will stop debate, force us to go as quickly as we can and allow this bill to be passed by the House of Commons and the Senate in a very short period.
What is most interesting about this whole debate is that 54 per cent of the poorest Canadians are the ones who live below the poverty line, who are on welfare already and who are unemployed. There are those who cannot seem to help themselves because they are disabled or are seniors who through no fault of their own are not able to work and are relying on the governments to look after them as we have done in the past. It think it is important to remember that 54 per cent of all Canadians in those categories are affected by this piece of legislation.
I think it is important for our constituents to know exactly what does the Canadian Assistance Plan do and what does it provide for our poorest Canadians. It provides, very succinctly, basic necessities such as food, shelter, clothing, utilities and household supplies. That part of the Canadian Assistance Plan is better known as the welfare side of it.
It also supplies to those Canadians who may not fall within the welfare roles but are in such a situation where they may not be able to provide dental care, and this social assistance will do that. It will provide essential living services for disabled persons, foster homes for abused children, safe housing for abused women, and subsidized child care for low income families.
As we can see, this particular piece of legislation, Bill C-32, will have a tremendous impact on the abilities of our poorest people in Ontario, our poorest people in Alberta and our poorest people in British Columbia to be able to help themselves with the very basic necessities, to pick themselves up by the bootstraps and try to get out of that continual cycle of poverty which we as a caring and loving society are trying to help them with.

There is also another strong implication of this particular legislation. As was mentioned by myself and others in this House when we debated Bill C-69, we believe very strongly-and I know most Canadians involved in the social assistance areas believe it-that this is a threat to the universality programs which previous governments in previous years have tried to put in place, that social safety net that we believe so strongly is necessary in order for Canadians to feel that the particular society we live in has not given up on them, is not that mean and cruel society of other countries in the world, but in essence is a society prepared to look after its own and is prepared to pay for it out of its taxes and out of its own pockets.
I want to put in context where this particular program came from. There is a particular belief by a lot of people in this country that the New Democratic Party is the only party that believes in social programs, the only party that is quite prepared to stand up for the little guy when he has difficulty in looking after himself. I want to speak to that for a moment and put to rest the myth that it is the party that has done what is necessary for the poor of this country.
I want to talk specifically about the war on poverty which began in earnest in the mid-1960s. Under the then Prime Minister, Lester B. Pearson, the government passed a few major pieces of legislation. That particular government, as we all know, was a Liberal government. That government was the government that put in place the medical care insurance plan, the Canada Pension Plan that we as Canadians are all so proud of, a guaranteed income supplement for pensioners who were having difficulty making ends meet on the meagre Canada Pension Plan, and the Canada Assistance Plan.
Those four initiatives in the mid-1960s were part of a process that the then Liberal government went into to try and put in the social contract that we hear so much about. That social contract was put in place to allow Canadians to feel comfortable, that if times get difficult, like the world recession we went through in the early 1980s in which there was massive unemployment, there would be a tremendous rise in the social assistance program.
The Canada Assistance Plan rose by almost 12 per cent in those years of high unemployment and massive world recession. Did the government of the day say it had to
Government Orders
cut this particular program down because of the people who are using it, that it simply could not allow that to go past a certain percentage point? This government across the way seems to believe that anything over 5 per cent is not acceptable.
No, we did not do that. We worked as hard as we could to try and help those Canadians to help themselves. We got through that particular recession because of that. We have now broken the contract. It has been 25 years since the enactment of this Canada Pension Plan, the Canada Assistance Plan, which was heralded as a model of federal-provincial co-operation.
I want to emphasize to members across the way that in order for this federation of ours to work, co-operation must be a two-way street. The provinces will co-operate with the federal government if it does not do things by decree arbitrarily. I hope it will understand that this particular move has done nothing to help all of us, as Canadians, to co-operate to make this country of ours work more effectively. All the constitutional changes in the world will not work unless we have that co-operation that is necessary. A measure like Bill C-32 is not going to help that whole process one little bit.


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to stand here in this House today to speak on the bill before us, Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan. '
When I say I am pleased to stand here, I am displeased at the same time because such a regressive bill is something this country does not need, particularly the three provinces that are going to be most seriously affected.
Through this legislation the government will cap the Canada Assistance Plan transfers to three provinces: Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. According to the government's own estimates, the three affected provinces will lose $2,135 billion in federal transfers over the five-year period through 1995 to 1996.
The affected provinces estimate the loss to be much higher. Ontario, for example, believes that the legislation will cost it $1 billion alone in this 1991 year.
As we know, the Canada Assistance Plan was enacted in 1966 to assist and encourage the development and expansion of social assistance and welfare services throughout Canada.

September 24, 1991
Government Orders
Under the plan the federal government agreed to share fifty-fifty the costs incurred by provinces and municipalities in providing social assistance and welfare services to needy Canadians.
This is a mandatory program. It is the responsibility of the federal government. It is the responsibility of the provinces and the municipalities to see that everyone in this country has a roof over their head, food on their table and is able to participate as a normal citizen.
Unlike other income maintenance programs, which establish conditions for eligibility, social assistance is the program of last resort. Once eligibility and entitlement have been determined, according to provincial legislation, the provincial or municipal agency delivering this program cannot refuse. It cannot refuse to provide that assistance and this government is cutting back on that money.
In other words, the government is refusing to provide the adequate basic services to people in this country who are in dire need. The primary objective of the plan is twofold: to support the provinces in the extension of adequate assistance for persons in need-and this is what the government is pulling back on-and to support the provinces in the delivery of welfare services fashioned to lessen or eradicate the effects of such social afflictions as poverty, child neglect or dependence on social assistance.
CAP has in essence created the foundation upon which Canada's social security system has been built, a system that has contributed to the unity of this country by fostering equality of regions and equality of people.
Recipients included under the Canada Assistance Plan are people in homes for special care, homes for the aged, nursing homes, hostels for transients, child care institutions, homes for unmarried mothers and many others. In areas of health care, in areas of child welfare, in areas of welfare service, it is a known fact, not only in this country but in all countries around the world, that children from homes who are provided welfare have a much higher rate of not going to university, not carrying on their education, of health care problems and many other problems.
These are the people who are going to be suffering. These are the most vulnerable people of our society. The
assistance they receive comes in the form of dental care, essential living services for disabled persons, foster homes for abused children, safe housing for abused women, social assistance when they are unable to find a job.
The provinces affected by this legislation, which are Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, are the only provinces that today do not receive federal equalization payments from the Government of Canada. In other words, the Government of Canada calls these three provinces the have provinces.
As of March 1990 half of the poor families of Canada, 54 per cent of all welfare recipients under CAP, were living in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. When we should be looking for ways to get these people off of social assistance, we are having to stand here today and debate whether those who are in need will be able to get social assistance. I find it absolutely ludicrous.
The government again is failing to realize that at this time of recession people are already suffering. Interest rates remain high, the Canadian dollar remains high, unemployment remains unacceptably high with the end not in sight for some time. Unprecedented levels of bankruptcy, especially in this province of Ontario, exist in this country, and there have been permanent losses of thousands of jobs in the manufacturing sector in Ontario. All of the above crises are happening right here. They are right here at home.
The government says: "Don't worry about the CAP. It only affects the three richest or have provinces". This province, in which I live, could very well become one of the have not provinces.
I would like to know who is going to support it, and who is going to support 50 per cent of the welfare recipients in this province. When will this government wake up and realize that there are no more have provinces because of its own policies?
In the 1990 budget the government announced that growth in CAP transfers was to be limited to 5 per cent for Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario in the fiscal years of 1990-91 and 1991-92.
In the 1991 budget the government extended the ceiling on these three provinces. It capped transfers for three more years through the fiscal years of 1994 and 1995. After that, the government assumes that CAP
September 24, 1991

expenditures will grow roughly in line with increases in the Gross National Product.
The federal government is abrogating its moral responsibility to disadvantaged Canadians. The federal government says it will save $2.4 billion. It will save $2.4 billion on the backs of the needy. It is unconscionable. I do not understand it.
Will this money go to debt reduction? Why is debt reduction the responsibility of those people who are on low income, or those people who are not able to provide for themselves? I have to give the government, certainly, a failing grade on that point.
By its action the government is continuing its agenda of ftransferring the burden of the national debt and the federal deficit reduction on to the backs of the provinces and municipalities. This is abrogating the responsibility. It is a must; the provinces have to provide that. They cannot back out of it, and yet the federal government is certainly backing out of it.
We on this side of the House do not support this government's measures that transfer the burden of the national debt and the federal deficit reduction on to the backs of poor Canadians. We do not support it in that.
A Supreme Court judgment may have given the government the legal right to cut welfare transfers to the provinces, but it did not provide the government with the moral right to abandon its responsibility to poor and disadvantaged Canadians.
It also appears that the current amendment violates the spirit of federal-provincial co-operation which has marked the 24-year history of CAP. This is the first time in the history of CAP that the federal government has acted unilaterally to change its provisions.
In abrogating its commitment to contribute equally with the provinces to the alleviation and prevention of poverty, the federal government is throwing out that sacred trust of Canada's social programs.
CAP is the fundamental and minimum element of Canada's social safety net. Again, as I said, I am pleased to stand here. I am very displeased with this government. I would dearly hope that it could reconsider its actions and recognize the importance of maintaining that contribution, that payment to the provinces and to the municipalities.
Government Orders
It is the government's responsibility. It is my responsibility as a legislator, and it really grieves me that it has taken this action.


Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few moments to participate in this debate because I think there is a need to put on the record some of the concerns many members would share with me that they picked up over the last few months working in their ridings.
Part of the problem is that government, in a real broad sense of the word, has changed. There may well have been a time when a government could express a political philosophy and kind of live its parliamentary life in splendid isolation. The people it governed did not really know what kind of a lifestyle the members would lead, what Parliament was up to and all the little things that governments do.
In a modem age, people see the day-by-day occurrences of life in Parliament, of life in government, of how governments spend their money. The newspapers are full of accounts of massive expenditures that do not work and of large amounts of money that have been spent on projects that never will function.
They see, for example, the way a cabinet minister carries out his or her duties. Someone stands in this Chamber and preaches restraint and then goes outside and gets into a limousine that has a driver, and the people of Canada see that. Perhaps they should not be making their judgments in this way, but they do. They do not have an understanding of what is meant inside the Chamber when someone preaches restraint but outside takes a limousine and a driver to the airport, and flies first class to some great meeting somewhere else in the world. They see that in a much different light than members of Parliament would and they see it in very hard and critical terms.
Perhaps they knew that governments across the board at all levels had frankly said: "We cannot afford to do things in the same way as we always have and so we will not have any more great conferences. We will not fly deputy ministers around the world to learn how to govern. We will not do a great many things that this government has, on the record, reportedly done."

Government Orders
Perhaps they did not know that the people who are governing this country are, by and large, people who represent the wealthier class. Perhaps they did not see on their income tax returns and then in talking to people in their own community that most people who have an income now, and not necessarily an upper income but a substantial income, have options instead of paying their income tax and, of course, they exercise those options. They read about how to avoid paying taxes and they pay people to give them financial advice on how to defer their taxation.
It is clearly understood among people all across Canada now that one becomes rather stupid if one gets caught in the taxation net. So what you find out is that people who have a take home pay cheque with taxes deducted at source are people who are carrying the tax load in this country. They look around them in their own community and they have knowledge of those who pay no taxes. They understand that is unfair. So when this government brings forward this type of legislation, they question whether or not it is sincere in what it is doing. Of course, the test with any kind of legislation is not whether it fits into an ideology, whether it fits into a political philosophy, but whether or not it responds to the reality of the day.
I would put to you, Mr. Speaker, that in my own province of Ontario it does not, because Ontario is going through what some would call a recession, but I think is, in truth, a restructuring of its economic base. A recession, in my mind, would be a decline in buying power. People do not buy the cars people in Oshawa build, perhaps not as quickly or as often. But a restructuring means that some of the plants that used to supply parts for that auto plant in Oshawa do not exist any more. You cannot get recalled to a job that has been moved to Alabama. That factory is not there in Ashbum any more, it is gone.
There are a number of people all across Ontario who face the same thing. This is not just a downturn in our economy, it is a restructuring of the whole fibre of our industrial base in Ontario. Oddly enough, it will not be this government which feels the pinch as directly as municipal governments. Although it would be a theory, it is true that the Canada Assistance Plan, for example, serves several functions, but when you get down to the
municipal level what you find out is that the funding may come down a tunnel and the program may be designed to fit specific needs, but in practice the money is necessary. What we are finding in Ontario politics now at the municipal level is that people at a council are saying: "We have had a 50 per cent or 60 per cent jump in the welfare case load in our community."
Now we have to find some money because there is a law on the books that says we must provide these kind of assistance programs. The money is not forthcoming from the federal government or the provincial government because those have been budgetary matters decided some time ago. It is now in the court of the municipality. What they are doing is making the hard choices they have to make. Although it is a theory, it has nothing to do with the Canada Assistance Plan, but their legal obligations must be carried out and so they must delay expenditures for other things like streets, roads, arenas, libraries, schools and all of those other expenditures to find their percentage of this funding program.
I think part of what is wrong with this bill and is reflected across Canada now is that people would understand if this government all of a sudden said: "Well, we really are under a restraint program and there will be no more use of consultants anywhere in the Government of Canada for a whole year." The people would then say: "Boy, it must be serious because consultants, by and large, turn out to be their friends and they turn out to get rather large and handsome contracts for doing work for the government. So it must be serious if they are turning down their friends.", or if the Government of Canada said: "Well, there will be no more big sponsored conferences by the federal government for a year and a half. You can have your conferences but somebody else has to sponsor them." Or, mercy me, they could stop their massive advertising campaigns and say, for example: "We would be happy to supply you. We have lots of print material that you can get in all the constituency offices of the members, but we are not going to do any television spots promoting this".
I am reminded that the advertising programs of the government are sometimes not quite as effective as it would like them to be.
A woman called me at home this summer and asked me: "What is this tax on student loans"? I asked: "What
September 24, 1991

tax?" I read the budget and it was not in there. I get all kinds of mail about new government programs, new taxes and all that kind of stuff. I have not seen any of that. I have called both offices and they have no information on that. I called our critic. No information there. We called the Library and there was no information there. Why did the Government of Canada see fit to put a tax on student loans and did not bother to tell anybody until it began to apply the tax? If the purpose of the exercise is to inform the public, this seems to be one example, at least, of where it chose not to inform the public.
What is wrong here is that the concept of what the government is trying to do does not fit into the reality of the day. There is nobody here who could not give you chapter and verse on government waste, I am sure. There is probably nobody left in the country who could not do that.
There is nobody in the country who is afraid of competition. The problem really is that competition and lectures on the values of competition usually come from those who no longer compete. When you are in the trenches, when you are struggling for a job and when you are trying to compete in the workplace, it is not exactly a pleasant experience. It only becomes one after you leave that particular venue and you occupy some higher place.
I do not think the people of Canada need lectures on restraint any more. I do not think they need this kind of simplistic legislation any more. What they need is a government that has some sense of what it is like to be employed anywhere in Canada in this day and age. What is necessary is a government to have some sensitivity that the province of Ontario is going through a massive restructuring of its economic base and that is hurting. That pain is beginning to be translated into municipal budgets. The provincial budget of last spring was certainly an expression of that.
Ontario is, perhaps, one good example of a province that is trying to be a little bit creative about social assistance programs, to provide a little more flexibility and to provide something a little more positive than a welfare cheque. But it is caught now because it is trying to put those changes into effect in the middle of a massive restructuring of its economy with a downturn to boot. It is caught in a very dangerous position.
Government Orders
I believe the Government of Canada ought to rethink this program. This program does not apply to this time and this place in this nation. It is quite wrong-headed.
The federal government cannot lecture the current government in Ontario for running up substantial debts when it has on the books the laws that make the government run up those debts. The government in Ontario is simply trying to buffer a little bit, as much as it can, those municipalities and those school boards and it is struggling to do that.
I would prefer to see this government drop this notion. This kind of a bill does not work. Look at the reality of the day and do what governments ought to do; respond to the real needs of the people they are supposed to represent.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity this afternoon to participate in this debate on Bill C-32.
You will recall that this morning that I read excerpts from that infamous book known as Where I Stand by a well-known Canadian author and not so good politician. That well-known Canadian author and not so good politician wrote this book a number of years ago, telling us abut the importance of contributing in the area of education and training in this country.
Education, of course, falls within the authority of the province. But the Government of Canada needs to contribute to it, in order to make sure that it happens so that we have a well trained and well equipped workforce in this country.
What is the government doing? It is cutting back on transfers to the provinces.

In the case of my own province, the province of Ontario, $1 billion will be cut this year from transfers to the provincial government, one billion!
I see the minister opposite, and I am sure he will realize that cuts totalling one billion and the fact that in Ontario we have a government that is not too good at government administration, that these two factors combined will have a disastrous impact on Ontario. So we have those budget cuts I just described and the people of Ontario are suffering.

Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, many people have criticized Bill C-32 and its predecessor, Bill C-69.1 will read a few passages from what the experts had to say.

Lise Corbeil Vincent of the National Anti-Poverty Organization said, according to this article in The Ottawa Citizen, and I quote: "This is a disaster for people in Canada".
This program, the one about which we are talking that will be affected, is designed to help those 1.9 million Canadians who are on welfare, and those 1.9 million Canadians on welfare have very little defence. They have very few ways of getting their voices heard. Many times they are the same people who are regrettably functionally illiterate or do not avail themselves, or cannot avail themselves, of the tools to air their grievances.
I want to read a few more quotes. Here is another one: "The poor will become more and more defenceless than ever as the already meagre levels of government support are cut further". Again that was Lise Corbeil Vincent.
Finally Viola Robertson of the Native Council of Canada said: "Many native Canadians already living in Third World conditions will only suffer more as cost-cutting continues to be more important than human lives".
That is the sad reality.
In the riding I represent, Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, we have veiy high unemployment. Over the last years, as a result of the recession, caused largely by economic policies of this government, and as a result of some of the legislation that has been passed in the House before, namely the changes in the unemployment insurance provisions, the welfare rolls have increased substantially.

And while the unemployment rate is rising in my riding, Mr. Speaker, the federal government announces it will cut transfer payments to the provinces. The province will then cut or at least not increase, transfers to municipalities. Now the municipalities, which happen to be the level of government closest to the taxpayer have to pay the people on their welfare rolls but cannot get the money from the other levels of government.
That is what is happening in Glengarry-Prescott- Russell, Stormont-Dundas, and other rural ridings in Ontario.

There is a misconception out there that in Ontario, it being a wealthier province than others, everyone is well off. There are still some people I guess in other regions of the country who would probably define a poor Ontarian as someone who washes his own Cadillac, or something like that. Well, the reality of course is very different.
The area I represent, and I am thinking here of Prescott County particularly, has unemployment of about 15 per cent, very high welfare, and people who are living in conditions that are certainly not what we would wish for them.

Mr. Speaker, there is still time for the government to do something. I ask them to withdraw this bill, this budgetary measure that is so unfair to the neediest in this country. If they stopped to think, they would realize that these cuts which are now being imposed on the so-called wealthier provinces are not really affecting the provinces, the provincial governments or the ministers personally, but the people on welfare in these provinces.
Those are the people we are concerned about, Mr. Speaker. We as parliamentarians are here to defend those who are least able to defend themselves.

That is why I ask our colleagues across the way to think very seriously about this bill. They have had an opportunity to pause and reflect after the issue went to the Supreme Court of Canada on Bill C-69. The Supreme Court did indicate, at least to a degree, that the government had the legal authority to enact such legislation, and I say to a degree, because on one aspect the decision was not all that clear. But, needless to say, even if it has the legal right, it certainly does not have what I consider to be the moral right to cut back on benefits to the poorest of Canadians.
When we are talking about transfers to the provinces in the Canada Assistance Plan, that is exactly what we are referring to; we are talking about money for education and money for welfare. In the area of welfare I have explained the effects, and in the area of education it is the same, Mr. Speaker. Because if we do not invest to train our population, we will find more and more of them in poverty. The poor will get poorer and the rich will get richer, and that is not good for us as a society. It is bad
i

September 24, 1991

for those people in that position but it is bad for all of us collectively.

Mr. Speaker, when people live in poverty, the crime rate tends to go up. When people are in need, this often has undesirable effects, unfortunately.
In concluding, I would ask the government to withdraw this bill while there is still time, and to stop being partisan and consider for a minute the well-being of Canadians.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg-St. Janies):: Mr. Speaker, I do not have to tell you that this is an historic day in our country. There began today a new round of constitutional negotiations and I think all of us in this House would agree and all of us would hope that this newest round of constitutional negotiations will end in a successful and equitable settlement, a settlement that all Canadians from sea to sea to sea can be comfortable and happy with so that we can move forward to greater and better days.
By any objective measurement, by any standard, by any measurement, Canada is a great country. I think one of the reasons why it is a great country is because we have a strong tradition of sharing. Just look at some of the things that we have done, say, since the Second World War, be it family allowances, unemployment insurance benefits, old age assistance, Canada Pension Plan, medicare; I could mention a number of programs. But they all speak to a fine quality in Canadians, a quality of sharing; sharing our resources, sharing our wealth. I think that is one of the main reasons why this country is so great. I think if we continue that tradition of caring and sharing, the future of this country will be guaranteed and it will remain one of the best countries in the world.
But I am worried, Mr. Speaker. I am worried because I see a Tory agenda, a Tory disease that I think is slowly but surely destroying that great tradition of sharing in this country. I think this particular bill, Bill C-32, which would place a 5 per cent cap on CAP or, to put it another way, a 5 per cent cap on social programs under the
Government Orders
Canada Assistance Plan, is symptomatic of what I call the Tory disease, symptomatic of the Tory agenda.
Let there be absolutely no doubt about it, this government which, by the way, is probably the most right wing government this country has ever known, is following a very deliberate agenda. It is an agenda, if I can put it in a few words, to downsize government, to handcuff government, to get government away from some of the traditional responsibilities that government has had in this country and turn those responsibilities over to the private sector.
The government has done it in many ways. In some cases it has just taken its responsibilities and given them to the marketplace. One of the best examples of that, of course, is the free trade agreement, a bilateral agreement with the United States, an international treaty that really democratizes this country. It makes us unable to deal with some very very serious national economic issues because those responsibilities have been taken away from government, taken away from the people and turned over to the private sector, over to the marketplace. The marketplace, as you know well, Mr. Speaker, is really not that democratic and I do not even expect it to be that democratic. Certainly you do not have the kind of justice that most Canadians would want out of the marketplace. If you are looking for justice, you look to your democratic institutions.
The free trade agreement is just one example of that. We have seen this government slowly destroying our tradition of sharing in other ways. Look at what it is doing by way of reducing transfer payments to the provinces. Transfer payments are an example of sharing; the federal government, facing its responsibilities, taking on those responsibilities seriously, and providing assistance to all provinces, sharing the wealth, sharing our resources.
We have seen in the last few years that the government is cutting back on those transfers, cutting back on moneys to the provinces. You can be absolutely sure that many of the provinces, if not all of them, will not be able to afford some of those cutbacks. What the provinces will do in turn is pass on some of their responsibilities to the municipalities. The municipalities have no place to turn whatsoever and those very valuable services that are

Government Orders
provided as a result of the transfer of payments will come to an end.
Through that kind of process, you can see the unravelling of social programs, the unravelling of the country itself. When you have a reduction in transfer payments, you have a reduction of assistance to medicare. There is a reduction of assistance to secondary education. The provinces cannot bear those burdens alone. The resources of the provinces are limited. The federal government must take its responsibilities seriously. I do not think the government is doing that.
I understand why. I understand it is because of its ideology. This government really does not believe in government. If it does believe in government at all, it believes in weak, impotent government. It believes in weak, impotent, democratic institutions. Leave it to the marketplace, leave it to the private sector.
I am a champion of the private sector. The private sector does some of its jobs extremely well. When it comes to business, I say, leave business to business. It is up to us politicians to set the polices, to set the parameters, to make absolutely sure that in our daily activities, be those activities by individual Canadians, groups of Canadians or corporations, that we are always working for the common good, for the good of all of us, for the good of the country. I do not see that in the way the government is operating.
There is no great mystery about the Canada Assistance Plan. It is there to help the poorest of the poor. It is there to provide benefits to the poor and especially to children. I think it is a very sad commentary on the government, and in a way it is a sad commentary on our country, when we see the government putting a cap on this kind of assistance. It in effect says to the people of the world: "We are not going to share our resources any more. We are going to leave it to the provinces". Of course, then the provinces will turn around and say: "We'll leave it to the municipalities". That is a recipe for disaster. That is how services begin to unravel to a point where they will not exist any more.
In my closing moments, I would say to the government, look at this bill again. It is wrong in principle and it should be reconsidered, in fact, it should be just dropped completely.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-69 will cap the Canada Assistance Plan at 5 per cent until the year 1992. Bill C-32 extends that cap for another three years. This further capping is part of this government's agenda. The government says: "We must do something about the deficit", but then proceeds by making the people who can least afford to do something about the deficit contribute to the reduction of the deficit, forcing them to take a good portion of the burden.
The agenda of this government is an agenda which suggests a trickle down theory. If you feed the corporations enough, maybe they will pass some of it on to the workers. It does not work that way and it has never worked that way.
I understand the province of Ontario has added close to 300,000 people to its welfare rolls in the last year. That to a great extent has been caused by the policies which this government has put in place and the free trade deal that was passed by this government. How does it do it? It seems like a long and involved process because it happens at so many levels. A while ago it changed the UI for workers and with the free trade and other reasons, the high dollar, we have had the closing of many plants across the province. I speak of Ontario now because Ontario is one of the benefactors of this particular bill. However, the plants close so people are put out of work. The bill passed by this government has reduced the UI they will get, and it has also shortened the time that they will get it. It is harder to get UI and it runs out quicker than it did in the past. Also there are fewer jobs because there is a continuous closure of plants.
What does this worker do? He goes to the municipality for social assistance. So these people go on social assistance. This increases the cost of social assistance to the municipality. It increases the cost of social assistance to the province. In the past, a good many years ago, if you spent 50 cents on social assistance the federal government contributed 50 cents. However, the Liberal government in its wisdom changed that a few years ago and made it a block payment to provincial governments so that it no longer had to match the funds that the provincial government pays. Consequently it has got away with less.
September 24, 1991

But what the government is doing now in this particular bill is cutting the federal assistance which would help to pay the social assistance necessary for these people who have been put out of work by its policies. In other words, there has been a very deliberate and somewhat indirect but effective change in the quality of assistance or the amount of assistance that has been available to people who require welfare. This whole process is based on an agenda that makes it possible in this country for the rich and the corporate elite to become richer, to get more out of the system than they have had in the past. That whole process is part of this government's agenda.
The government will say that it has introduced these measures in the name of fiscal restraint and that only the rich provinces are being affected and they can afford the cap. As I pointed out before, the number of people who have been added to the welfare rolls in Ontario has increased faster than most of the other provinces. Consequently it has more need for this extra money to come in, in the future.
Even before that happened, 50 per cent of the poor in Canada lived in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. If you are poor, it does not matter which province you live in. You have the same needs and you have to go to the municipalities and the provinces to have those needs alleviated. If the federal government does not contribute to that alleviation then the province must do so, and that is going to add to the burden in the particular province.
Also, one has to recognize that Alberta for many years, British Columbia fairly continuously, and Ontario, when there is a recession in the rest of the country, are the provinces that are going to get the movement of unemployed people. I come from the province of Saskatchewan where we have had a Conservative government for the last eight years which will soon be over, thank goodness. But in those last eight years, in fact in this last year, 24,000 people left Saskatchewan. They went to Alberta. They went to Ontario. They went to British Columbia. As the recession hits those provinces many of those people are likely to be on welfare before very long, probably very quickly. They have not been able to work in those provinces long enough to build up UI benefits.
What this government has done by its policies in other areas has put more pressure on these so-called richer provinces and made it impossible for them to deal with
Government Orders
the requirements of the Canada Assistance Plan structure. As I said before, many of these people are forced to go on UI. Since there has been a cutback in UI they are back on the welfare roles much more quickly than one would expect.
CAP provides for a fifty-fifty cost sharing between the feds and the provinces, but only up to a certain level. When that level is reached, then the province has to find the money or the municipality has to find the money. Talk to the mayor of Toronto right now. He will tell you a long story about how difficult it is to deal with the extra requirements put on the city because of the closing of plants, because of the needs of the people who have been taken off work as a result of closing of plants caused in many cases by the free trade agreement and the GST increasing the cost of operation in Ontario.
Bill C-32 is just another example of how the government has decided to place the burden of paying off the debt, paying off the deficit or the accumulated debt, on the shoulders of those who can least afford it. The government has not targeted the people who caused the debt or asked them to pay the debt because the corporate taxes have declined 20 per cent since 1986 and the profits for those same corporations have increased by 34 per cent.
We have a situation where this government is making a deliberate decision to reduce the amount of money that is going to be available to people who are forced to go on social assistance and not going to the source of the problem for funds to take care of that situation.


Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Brampton moved that Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan, be read the second time and referred to committee, many of us were outraged.
I was particularly shocked by his closing statements in the remarks he made yesterday. I will quote them: "There are no quick, painless fixes to the deficit and debt problems we have inherited. I urge all members of the House to support this motion and to join us in accepting our fiscal responsibility to all Canadians".
We cannot fool the Canadians sitting at home in then-living rooms at this moment or on the replay tonight. If the government was truly interested in fiscal responsibility, it would have begun years ago.

September 24, 1991
Government Orders
When we as the Liberal Party lost the election in 1984, there were 28 ministers in the government. Since 1984 that number has climbed to over 40. Of course, when you raise the number of ministers you raise all the expenses of government.


An hon. member:: Like the limousines.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Like the limousines.


An hon. member:: Two ministers for every department.


Stan Kazmierczak Keyes: Yes, two ministers for every department.
We went through some healthy economic times in 1985, 1986 and 1987. When the times were good did this government take a second and say: "Well, listen, the times are good. Like many Canadians living at home, when times are good we had better sock away a little bit into an emergency fund, or maybe we should have another look at this national debt of $180 billion and better start paying it down, because it is only going to grow and especially if inflation gets away from us in the future we will be able to pay it down". But that did not happen.
Today Canada has inherited from this government that has been sitting on that side of the House since 1984 a debt that has gone from $180 billion to over $400 billion. "Interest rates," it cries, "interest rates".
The Conservatives set the economic agenda. They set the fiscal and economic policy for this country. They are the ones who created the problem and the financial mess we are in today.
The government has not eliminated the deficit as it said it would do but has instead doubled the national debt, as I have said, to $400 billion. Tory cabinet ministers maintain they are merely servicing the debt incurred by the former government, but is it not about time that they accepted responsibility for the fiscal mess which they have put this country in, the responsibilities and decisions they have made since 1984?
In this whole notion of capitalism as the way of the future-and it is such a smashing success-some like to point to the United States as the leader of that capitalistic order. I have to ask myself, and my constituents ask themselves at home: "Why are millions of Americans living in abject poverty, in ghettos teaming with people
who have fallen through the cracks so fast?" It is because the safety net is so thin.
My colleague from the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell likes to quote from a book. I have got one for him. In a new book entitled The Quick and the Dead-Brian Mulroney, Big Business and the Seduction of Canada, Linda McQuaig writes that top Tory officials privately admit that the Prime Minister and his government are intent on dismantling Canada's prized social safety net in favour of the open-ended, laissez-faire, rough and tumble, cutthroat world that we see just south of our border.
It has been mentioned in this House before, that the cornerstone of that plan was the free trade agreement between Canada and the U.S. What the Prime Minister and the Conservative government failed to realize was that such a free trade agreement would mean one of two things. First, Canada would immediately rush into the U.S. market and swallow up entire sections of businesses becoming global giants. Second, Canadian companies would drop like flies because labour costs and material costs and taxation were so low in the United States that they would either not be able to compete and would be forced out of business or else they would take it upon themselves to move to the U.S. where the cost of doing business is cheaper.
We are seeing that happening every day. Near our riding of Hamilton West Triton is gone. In a community where I used to work, Barrie, Ontario, General Tire, what did they spend? They spent $45 million upgrading that plant. They are going to make the tires at the parent company in the United States. After nearly 300,000 Canadians have lost their jobs since the free trade deal was struck, the Prime Minister has announced a new campaign for competitiveness.
The former Minister of Finance, let us call him the former minister of financial disaster, has been asked to take on this task. Work shops, position papers, programs, all will be created for us so that we may be competitive.
The result of this nearsightedness is that the statistical sheets are all covered in red ink. In the world-wide recession of 1982 there were 32,000 bankruptcies in Canada. In the latest made-in-Canada recession, a recession made by this government, there were 42,782 bankruptcies in Canada in 1990, a 50 per cent increase over 1989.

September 24, 1991

Government Orders
In Ontario 16,287 residents had to declare bankruptcy and another 2,907 businesses followed suit.
Here is another interesting statistic. Some more red ink. There are currently 1.5 million people unemployed in this country as the unemployment hovers over 10 per cent.
According to the Canadian Association of Food Banks, the number of people receiving emergency food aid each month in this country is 186,000, including the stark, tragic statistic of one in six children.
I have reams of numbers I can quote for the folks at home and here in the House. This bill would put a cap on the amount of money transferred from the federal government to the three provinces which do not receive equalization payments, but nonetheless rely on federal funding. The provinces are B.C., Alberta and this province of Ontario.
People are lined up at the food banks and this government proceeds with limitations on what it will give provinces like Ontario to provide social assistance programs.
In my riding of Hamilton West the unemployment rate has matched the rate of factory closures. Here are some statistics. In April the unemployment rate was 8.1 per cent; in May, 8.5 per cent; in June, 9.7 per cent; and in July, 10.8 per cent. Last month that rate climbed to 11.4 per cent; 38,000 people unemployed in Hamilton. Where are these and the 1.3 million other unemployed Canadians to turn if they cannot rely on their governments? If the economy does not pick up soon, the three provinces will bear the burden being imposed on them through this bill, by receiving $2,135 billion less.
What are the low income families with three children to do if their mother or father is laid off? Sometimes one parent works at night, others work shifts and others are trying to make ends meet.
In conclusion, these were all called the sacred trusts. They are sacred. They are sacred to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have lost their manufacturing jobs. They are sacred to the other millions of Canadians who desire a decent standard of living but are finding it increasingly difficult because of this government's fiscal mismanagement. I wish I could go on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam-PS 2000; the hon. member for Saint-Leonard -Montreal's economy; the hon. member for Edmonton East-Petro-Canada; the hon. member for Northumberland-External Affairs; the hon. member for Bonavis-ta-Trinity-Conception-Fisheries.
The hon. member for Gatineau-La Lievre.


Mark Joseph Assad: Mr. Speaker, if you are agreeable, I would like to provide some brief background information on the bill before the House today. The purpose of the Canada Assistance Plan, which goes back a number of years, to 1966, to be exact, was to help the neediest in our society. This was part and parcel of a tradition we have always had here in Canada which is to look after our neighbours, to be our brother's keeper. The attitude has always been that special measures are needed to help those in greatest need.
Mr. Speaker, when we look at the way the Canada Assistance Plan works, for many years it has helped to redistribute wealth in this great country of ours. Unlike most countries in the world-one example is the United States-we have a number of social mechanisms to ensure that all Canadians have the minimum they need.
Of course, many people envy the fact that Canada has always ensured that Canadians had their old age pension, subsidized housing and federal assistance for provincial welfare payments, so that people always had something to fall back on when times were hard.
Today, these principles in which we take so much pride may be threatened. I would like to show you how important the Canada Assistance Plan is and read the objectives of the plan as they were drafted 25 years ago: to support the provinces in providing welfare payments and institutional care appropriate to the needs of the needy; and to support the provinces' social welfare services aimed at alleviating, eliminating or preventing the causes and effects of poverty, child neglect or welfare dependency.

Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, all Canadians know that these are the principles that guide our social policy. For some time there have been various cuts in our social programs because of the deficit. The GST was supposed to deal with our deficit, but nevertheless, the government has managed to put a cap on spending that will affect the neediest in this country. Our point is, that although we have had a long tradition of providing social services in this country, gradually and very subtly, the government is cutting costs.
Mr. Speaker, the three provinces that are affected are British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. These provinces have welfare plans, and now they have to raise taxes provincially and even at the municipal level to cover the shortfall, because they want to maintain national standards. This does not augur well for the rest of the country, Mr. Speaker.
Gradually, we notice that these major social benefits are undermined. I use that word because the various provinces are making efforts to help those in greatest need and see these funds being cut. Certainly the provinces in question will in turn have to cut if they do not find the financial wherewithal. What we should keep in mind is the national government's responsibility to ensure that all Canadians have the minimum required to keep them from extreme hardship.
Almost every day, or at least every week, we see on television countries that are incredibly worse off than we are. It is true that if we compare, we realize that we have a great country that cares about people's welfare, and rightly so, because it is part of what makes us Canadian. And we are proud of it. Of course, it was paid for by our taxes, but we were proud to take part because we knew that the least advantaged in our society would have our help, not directly from each one of us, but with some contribution of ours. However, such measures have called this into question and are not in keeping with our ideal as Canadians. We want to preserve this tradition of helping those in need. And I think that as a society that calls itself Christian, we want to maintain such things. Here we see a subtle way to undermine our basic rights.
Mr. Speaker, I would like Canadians to realize that some people are not affected by these cuts. Who is to say
that tomorrow, other cuts will not affect you? That is the issue. We want an egalitarian system. If we see that part of our society is deprived, believe me, we could be the ones to be hit by cuts tomorrow in a most basic area in a society like ours. We realize that we have moral obligations to those in greatest need.
Mr. Speaker, I would not like to elaborate on that too much; I think the message is very clear for the government. Nevertheless, there have been many demonstrations. Many briefs were presented by volunteer groups of people who give freely of their time. They realize that we must always be alert and vigilant to ensure that the most disadvantaged have a chance to obtain the basic necessities like health care and housing. Many studies show that if suitable housing is available, there is less illness, people are less discouraged and hospital admissions are down. It is as simple as that.
So in closing, Mr. Speaker, I would say to our fellow Canadians that we should not let this go by in silence; we should say that there comes a time when cuts in such a fundamental area as our social welfare cannot be tolerated. It is up to you and not only members of this House. We are representatives and servants, but we would like all Canadians who are aware of what such cuts imply to communicate with government members, tell them that you are aware of what they are doing and that you will not let some of the most basic programs that are in keeping with this country's greatest traditions be continually undermined in silence.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very carefully to some of the addresses in the House this afternoon with regard to Bill C-32.
I would just like to take a few minutes to participate in the debate today and address some of the major financial hurdles that all Canadians face, the fact that we are really living beyond our means. That means that we spend more than we take in.
This fiscal year it will be around the $30 billion area. We have to curtail our spending. It is difficult in certain areas and we certainly have not zeroed in on the health care of the lower income people and the social services.
September 24, 1991

The government has looked at absolutely every department and every issue, and everyone is going to have to contribute to get our deficit and our debt down.
The measures that we have taken within this Bill C-32 are in keeping with our agenda and will help us contain the deficit.
If we do not act now, we will not have the money to provide social services in the future. As I said, I know it is extremely difficult.
I know that some of my colleagues have discussed the numbers on the deficit and the debt. Currently the debt is sitting at $400 billion. This is certainly a big number, $400 billion which requires $43 billion in this year's expenditures just to service the debt.
When we came into office, and this is very interesting, the debt was sitting just at the $200 billion level and it has grown. Yes, it has doubled. But the growth is due to servicing the debt, Mr. Speaker, and certainly it is not due from other areas.
What I really want to talk about is that we have a problem. Why can we not all work on this together? The thing I have heard from my colleagues on the other side is discussing interest rates, the high interest rates, the high value of the Canadian dollar. Yes, they are high. In order to get those down, we flat have to cut our expenditures and get our deficit and debt down. This will also help put us in a more competitive position so that we can trade. Indeed, Canada is the most trade dependent nation in the western industrialized world. We have to trade to exist.
We hear people talk out of one side of their mouth saying get the dollar down, get interest rates down, and yet continue spending-and maybe you can help me, Mr. Speaker-but I have not heard anyone suggest a cut. They are asking today for us to withdraw the bill, which we have no intention of doing, for more money for health and welfare. It is a major department, but already the department spends 55, 56, 57 per cent of our budget. As some of my colleagues have stated, about $36 billion, $37 billion goes into the CAP transfer programs in this fiscal year.
Government Orders
We have to spend our money more wisely, spend it better, and we have to stop the treadmill from gaining so much speed. I have heard you ask for money for National Health and Welfare. I have heard money for science and technology, which I support. We need more science and technology, research and development. I have heard you ask for more money for agriculture. We would not eat. Our farmers, our agriculture people all across Canada have problems with regard to the GATT, the regulations and the subsidies that the European and the United States are applying to the export market on agriculture.
I have heard people ask for money in the transportation area with regard to runways as well as new terminals. Yes, we need new runways in certain areas across this country. I have heard people talk about housing. Housing is extremely important., Through CMHC, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, we assist about 40 per cent of the homeowners within Canada and we would like to assist more.
These are all worth-while valuable areas, but we are not going to be able to help anyone unless we are able to get our deficit down and our debt removed. As part of this effort, this bill addresses capping at 5 per cent the Canada Assistance Plan payments to the three better off provinces, Ontario, B.C. and Alberta. I am indeed from the province of Alberta, and it is hard. But we all have to get this under control.
Now, 35 cents of every dollar the federal government gets goes to service the debt. We cannot apply it against any programs. We cannot utilize it for the increase of our standard of living, increase of hospital care or educational institutions. No, it must go to service the debt.
With regard to Ontario, it carries carry about a $48 billion debt that is to be reached in the year 1991-92. It requires 12 cents out of every dollar to service the debt. In the province of B.C. the debt this particular year is going to be about $615 million and four cents of every dollar goes to service it. In the province I come from, eight cents of every dollar we collect goes to service the debt.
The constraints, or restraints, in the province facing the federal government are major in comparison. We all have to help. We all have to participate. It is everybody's problem. We will certainly maintain our fiscal restraint and work toward the lowering of the deficit, which will

September 24, 1991
Government Orders
be about $25 billion in two years and then down to $6.5 billion in the year 1995 at which time the government will no longer have to borrow outside to service the debt.
While we recognize that this is a very serious move, we also have to say that the amount of the federal transfer payments has been growing and indeed has grown at a much faster rate than the other programs. A major review is needed and certainly the Minister of National Health and Welfare is well aware of this. He met with his colleagues in June, I believe, and again just last week the counterparts in the provinces to discuss the whole area of health care and welfare. Indeed, we recognized that perhaps the time has come to take a look at how better we can do this.
Really what I want to say, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the opportunity, is that I know it is tough, but everybody has to help, all departments have to help, to reduce the deficit and debt. Then we will be able to support social programs within this country, maintain a standard of living, health care education that will be great for our youngsters instead of leaving them with a tax burden that would forbid them fro, perhaps having those beneficial elements we are able to give.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member who just spoke for really setting up the question for what I have to say in this House today.
The hon. member said that we live beyond our means and we have to curtail our spending. She said everyone has to contribute to get the deficit down. Then she accused the opposition of speaking out of both sides of our mouths.
Well, talk about the two-faced business lobby, talk about speaking out of two sides of mouths, talk about the cheek of this government suggesting that we have to all take and pay our fair share to get the deficit down so that social programs, health care programs and education in this country can be covered by this government. Let us take a look at some of the facts.
It is really interesting that this government and the corporations in Canada are all muling about how high the deficit is and how we all have to tighten our belts and how we all have to take and pay our fair share, but in fact if corporate Canada were paying its fair share of taxes in this country, we would not have the deficit we have and we would be able, with no difficulty at all, to maintain the social programs in this country, to maintain health care in this country, and to maintain post-secondary
education levels in this country in all of the provinces and territories, not in a select number of provinces and territories.
Let us look a little bit at the facts. In 1987 Canada had 362,828 corporations that reported profits of $87.7 billion. That is excluding intercorporate dividends. Guess how much they paid in taxes.
Well, they were supposed to pay 36 per cent of that in taxes. Thanks to the leaky system that this government and the Liberal government before it put into place, they in fact paid 17.7 per cent, about half of what they should have been paying in corporate taxation. Despite combined profits of $25 billion, 118,162 corporations, or about one in three, paid no corporate tax whatsoever. Not a cent, not a penny. Who has to tighten their belts, Mr. Speaker? Who, on the one hand, is not paying a cent of corporate tax, and on the other hand, is out there telling Canadians through this government that we all have to share the pain, that we all have to suffer? Who is suffering? Low income Canadians, students, the sick, the elderly.
I would not for a moment suggest that the Tories don't have an agenda. In fact, the hon. member just said "we are sticking to our agenda, and our agenda in the Tory government is let the little people, the people who are struggling, the people who are trying to keep this country running, pay, pay and pay again, and let corporate Canada yet again off the hook and lay the blame at the feet of the working people in this country, of the sick, of the elderly and of the poor".
The business groups in this country, and this government, are wrong about the deficit. It is not government spending that is too high. It is the way that we, in fact, are financing government spending that has been wrong. The cost of carrying past debt is expensive because too much of it is short term and the interest rates are too high. The Minister of Finance should restructure the debt and direct the Bank of Canada to lower its interest rates. The government should quit listening to the business groups which are not paying taxes which tell us on behalf of Canadians that we all have to cut back, that we all have to suffer and that we all have to pay.
I would like to talk just for a moment about my riding of Mission-Coquitlam. My riding is the shake and shingle capital of Canada. We produce in my riding cedar shakes and shingles. As you know, this government has
September 24, 1991

botched that industry. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the shake and shingle workers who are unemployed as a result of these botches are not very impressed by this government's telling us that everybody has to pay their fair share, and that we have to suffer in British Columbia because this government has botched it.
In my riding there is a blueberry industry. We produce more blueberries and more cranberries, more soft fruits, berry fruits like that, than anywhere else in North America. And, yet, because of the vagaries of weather we have had failures in crops this year. Those farmers are not convinced that this government is right when it says that they have to shoulder yet a further share of the pain through the capping of the Canada Assistance Plan. Young people in my riding, not young people 15 and 16 but young people 25, 26, who still cannot get full time jobs at decent wages, who still are unable to leave home.
Single moms in my riding, Mr. Speaker, who are living below the poverty line are being told because of this government's cutbacks in programs that they, in fact, are going to have to shoulder an even greater share of the burden.
All of these people are finding it very tough to believe, while half of corporate Canada is paying not one single cent, zero, in taxes. These people are finding it very, very tough to believe that they are not paying their fair share.
As if Bill C-32 is not enough, as if that is not putting the squeeze on the average Canadian enough, we have a record from this government of Bill C-21. You will remember that, that was the UI bill that made it harder to get unemployment insurance, makes the ability to collect unemployment insurance for a shorter time, and in fact makes it very very difficult for some workers in some industries to collect UI at all.
This government has partially deindexed family benefits. That means that families who need money get less each year. This government has clawed back family allowances and pensions and partially deindexed them, which means that the threshold for cutoff of benefits gets lower each year.
Further cuts to social assistance and cuts to health and post-secondary education in Bill C-69 and Bill C-20 are threatening the future of medicare and accessible education. There is still no sign of the long promised, twice
Government Orders
promised in election campaigns, national child care strategy which is desperately needed.
There is not enough integrity in this government to pay fairly government workers the pay equity that even the Human Rights Commission has said they justly deserve. This government is ignoring that. Nor is there enough integrity from this government to bargain fairly at the bargaining table.
Hon. members from the other side of the House get up and say to us with the highest level of sanctimony that we all have to tighten our belts and we all have to pay.
In closing, I would like to say that I would have an awful lot more respect for this government and for its agenda if it included all Canadians and did not exclude its corporate friends.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to see that the Parliamentary Secretary is back. I hope she will be able to stay and listen to my comments on her speech.

I am very happy that I had the opportunity to hear what she had to say because the Conservative Party stands in public opinion in my city of Toronto and in North York as well at around 8 per cent.
Anyone who is wondering-perhaps members of the government party are wondering-why the popularity of their government is so low just had to listen to that parliamentary secretary stand up and give her explanation of why this unacceptable measure, Bill C-32, is being brought forward now. We understand that Canadian people are not stupid and that they have been following the activities of this government since 1981. Clearly in metro Toronto, the Canadian people have had it with this government.
She stood up and said that the deficit was a big problem and that we all had to do our share to reduce it. The ceiling is being continued on the Canada Assistance Plan so that our province of Ontario does not receive the share which the federal government agreed to give it at the beginning of the program when so many worth-while support programs were entered into by governments in

Government Orders
Canada which form the major part of the social safety net underlying poverty in our country.
The social safety net, since its creation, has never been more needed than it is now after eight years of Tory government. The social safety net has never been more threatened than it is now after these eight years of Conservative government.
To say that this measure is justified by the deficit will make my voters recall the campaign promises that this government made in 1984. In 1984, when it was first elected, it was largely on the basis of promising to eliminate a deficit created by successive Liberal governments which stood then, if I remember correctly, at $174 billion.
The Conservatives were elected because it was said that the Liberals did not care as much about the deficit as they did, and they would do something about it.
How many years have elapsed under their government: six, seven or nearly eight years? Far from reducing the deficit, they have seen it more than double. Now, as if it were not the first time, they are saying that it is time to take on the problem of the deficit.
Their credibility has worn rather thin. Anything that they feel should be done now to bring down the deficit could have been done much more easily, much less painfully with much more public support in 1984 when Canadians were ready to believe that they were going to decrease the deficit.
In 1984 the Liberal deficit which the government could have decreased at that time, if it feels it is capable of doing it now, would have been more than twice as easy to eliminate than the deficit now. Not only was the amount less than half, but we were in a boom period when the social safety net was not being looked to by nearly as many of my fellow Torontonians or by our fellow Canadians who are looking to it now.
Now there are far more people who need the social safety net. Now there is far more of a deficit to deal with. This is a deficit which has been created by seven, nearly eight years of Conservative government.
People do not believe at this point that this government is capable of reducing the deficit and they do not
believe that this government intends to reduce the deficit.
The parliamentary secretary looked across and said: "All of us have to make our contribution to doing it". In the very same budget that introduced this very harsh measure, as I understand it-and I hope the parliamentary secretary or a member from the government party will stand up and correct me if I am wrong-the government did not give a break to the corporate welfare bums identified by the New Democratic Party. I think it is shooting at the wrong target when it talks about corporations. The government actually deferred the existing tax law for the taxation of capital gains passing through successions of wealthy families.
How much did that measure take away from its plan or commitment to reduce the deficit? How much could it have spared for the social safety measure if it had not introduced on a gratuitous basis another plan to make it easier for the rich to get along without paying taxes, not corporations as the last speaker for the NDP put it? Corporations have a role to play. The taxes that they pay have to be competitive with the taxes that are paid by corporations in other countries.
Why the payment of capital gains tax by individuals should have been deferred in the very budget that weakened and threatened and undermined the social safety net is something that I would like to see a member from the government party stand up and defend.
I understand that most members of the Conservative Party did not even know that this very budget that was undermining the social safety net in a manner that I intend to elaborate on for a few minutes was extending and increasing tax benefits to the wealthiest sector, the wealthiest group in Canadian society.
I have nothing against the rich in Canadian society. That is for sure. I certainly feel that a budget, which is administering harsh medicine to provinces and harsh medicine to poor families in Canada, should not at the same time have opened a new loophole for deferring capital gains tax to the wealthy.
One of the ways this government gets away with measures like this is that they are complicated and they are hard to report. I think it is worth taking a few moments to elaborate on some of the background of the benefits of the Canada Assistance Plan.
September 24, 1991

This is a program whose beneficiaries probably in most cases could not even identify it, but they are people who have received in the 1991-92 fiscal year $6.4 billion. This is a measure in which federal and provincial governments share equally the cost of basic necessities such as food, shelter, clothing, utilities and household supplies. This is a measure under which the federal government in the last election campaign promised to deliver day care.


An hon. member:: We cannot afford it.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Why did you not say so in the election campaign? The hon. member is saying the government cannot afford it. It says that now, now that it has another two years left in its mandate. During the election campaign what it said, as we and as the NDP did too, was that day care was the missing program under the Canada Assistance Plan and that it would introduce it if it were elected.
We were not elected. We can be excused.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I see I have only two minutes left. What I would like to know from the parliamentary secretary is this: How can that party now complain about being at 8 per cent popularity in the city of Toronto or at 16 per cent nationally when it had the nerve in the last election campaign to promise day care and it says now it does not have the money?
Was it not smart enough with the Minister of Finance that it had during the last Parliament-after it had doubled the deficit-to know that maybe this promise should not have been made?
This government is on a very sticky wicket to try and defend this measure on the basis of financial need when it has created the financial need by the way in which it has run the country since 1984.

If they had solutions to reduce the deficit and were committed to reduce the deficit in 1984, why did they not act on their promise when they took power in 1984?
Mr. Speaker, in the city of Toronto-

In the city of Toronto the government still has eight points left to go. Nationally, it still has 16 points left to
Government Orders
go. If it continues to make this kind of defence of its programs, it will not be very long in going through that 16 per cent.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, it is really a shame that there has to be a debate at all on Bill C-32. It is yet another vicious cut brought upon the poorest of the poor of this country by this government. I have here a list of programs provided under the Canada Assistance Plan and I want all the members of this House to know what these programs are because it is important that they know what this government is proposing to cut in this bill. There are programs dealing with children in foster homes who need protection, with physically or mentally disabled people, with single-parent families, with seniors, with the unemployed, with families and individuals in need, with low-income earners and with battered women.
That is the list I found in the Canada Assistance Plan annual report.
The government is proposing cuts in the payments to assist these people. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that this bill is flawed. This House should reject it.
We also have a quote from Mrs. Anne McGrath, the Vice-President of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, who stated the following before the Finance Committee during the study of Bill C-69. The source is the May 15, 1990 proceedings of the Committee, on page 121:5. She said: "Why is CAP important to women? I think we want to say that programs supported by the Canada Assistance Plan essentially present our most basic public commitment- this government's and this country's most basic public commitment-to women's equality. We view any threat to those programs as a reduction in this commitment.
As well, any reduction in this commitment and the reduction we are talking about in Bill C-69, we believe, puts at risk the real lives of poor and working women who are the primary beneficiaries of the programming that is eligible for funding under the Canada Assistance Plan.

Government Orders
I think our point is relatively simple. The services that are covered under the program embrace the range commonly known as welfare service. The primary target group is poor women with children. Although we still believe the best welfare is a good job, we also are quite concerned to make sure there is adequate support for the poor women with children who want to get those good jobs. We need good child care. We believe the best investments are with our youngest citizens."
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the government that introduced a bill such as Bill C-32 is doing exactly as it did with Bill C-69. Furthermore, it is obviously in disagreement with all groups supporting women, the poor, the unemployed and any person who needs the help provided by the Canada Assistance Plan.

In fact it is safe to say that this government has done worse than nothing for the poor of this country since it took office in 1984. The bulk of its program cuts have been in this area. We see this cap here. We see the clawback in old age security payments. We see increased premiums for unemployment insurance. We see reduction in payments under the Unemployment Insurance Act, both in duration and in amount. I suggest that what the government is doing is trying to solve its deficit problems on the backs of the poor.
I made a speech last Friday and effectively discredited the Minister of Finance's opening gambits on his budget presentation. This bill represents another part of his budget, and I indicated in that speech very clearly how the government had failed Canadians in leadership and its efforts to reduce the deficit.
In response to a question that was put to me after the speech when I was asked what it was we would have done, I neglected to mention one very important thing, and that is the things I suggested be done we would have done in the very first year of office, in this case in 1984.1 suggest had the government made the cuts in 1984 instead of giving tax breaks to the wealthy and increasing its expenditures, spending money like a drunken sailor, trying to hand out patronage plums to all its friends, if instead of doing all that it had really bitten the bullet, swallowed it, and said it was going to solve the deficit problem in Canada and been serious about it-as it kept saying it was throughout the election campaign-then today it would be expanding these programs instead of cutting because it would have money in the bank,
especially after having introduced something like the GST that is bringing it in so much money.
Yet the government did not think of that in 1984. Oh, no, no, they did not. They said: "Oh, well, we are a new government. The cupboard is bare but we can afford this and that. We can get jobs for our friends. We can help out this group and that group and spend money on this public work project and that public work project. We can build a new penitentiary in the Prime Minister's constituency and all kinds of things".
Remember all that? Now we are paying for it in spades. Now it is saying the reason why the deficit is so big is because of the interest payments on the debt it inherited. That is palpable rubbish. The reason it is having all these big interest payments today is because it did not reduce the government expenditures when it took office the way it said it was going to. Instead it gave tax breaks. It allowed the gap between revenue and expenditure to increase in 1984 and 1985 and 1986 instead of dealing with the issue properly. By 1987 it knew it had an election to face so it did not increase taxes at that time. Remember, it gave us a tax break? Remember it introduced part one of tax reform and lowered taxes before the election and then brought in the GST right after the election.
Any responsible government would have done the two at the same time, but not this group. It had its eye on the election campaign and it was determined to win, keep themselves in office at any cost, and boy, has it cost the Canadian people, particularly the lowest income groups in the population.
Let me quote some statistics that will back up my point. I know the hon. members do not like to hear statistics because it upsets them. I am quoting now from "Household Facilities by Income and Other Characteristics", a publication of Statistics Canada this year. "The 20 per cent of households with the lowest incomes, that is the bottom quintile, the bottom of one-fifth of all households in Canada, had the same share of total income in 1989, that is 5.2 per cent of the total income in Canada, as in 1981". In other words, over the nine year period they got no increase whatever, while the 20 per cent with the highest income showed an increase in the same period from 39 to 41 per cent, almost 40 to 42 per cent. The increase was at the expense of households in the middle three quintiles. Which is exactly what we have been saying. The middle classes have suffered under this government and the lowest groups in the whole system have got absolutely zero.
September 24, 1991

The second statistic: "Home ownership rate of households in the lowest quintile declined to 39 per cent in 1990 from 45 per cent in 1980". A significant drop, because house prices have gone out of reach for people in the lowest income groups.
Finally, "the proportion of renters spending 30 per cent or more of income on rent has decreased from 23 per cent in 1989 to 27.2 per cent in 1990", which sounds just fine, except that when you look at the lowest quintile you will find that, in fact, it increased significantly there.
On average, renter households spent somewhat more of their income on rent in 1990 than in 1982, an increase of about 1.5 per cent.
These figures belie a failure on the part of the government to address the needs of the poor in Canada and it has failed in this bill to do anything about it. In fact, it has made the situation worse.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I simply wish to remind the House that, because of the Prime Minister's statement and the opposition's response, the debate on the orders of the day will be extended until 5.47 p.m. Therefore, Private Member's Hour will begin at 5.47 p.m. The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to go over the fact that this Canada Assistance Plan covers the payments for those who are most disadvantaged in our community.
A lot of people tune into these House of Commons debates and sometimes we use expressions like CAP and we do not tell people often enough what we are actually debating. I know in a city like Toronto when we talk about the fact that we are getting payments cut back by the government that are due to those people who are disabled, foster homes for abused children, safe housing for abused women, subsidized child care, we are talking about capping. We are talking about cutting back.


An hon. member:: One of the three the richest provinces in Canada, in the whole country.
Government Orders


Dennis Joseph Mills: The member from Newfoundland talks about the three richest provinces in Canada. I presume that he would include the province of Ontario as one of those provinces. I want to let the hon. member know that right now in the province of Ontario and specifically metropolitan Toronto, we are on our knees.
I must tell you that I am totally sympathetic to your riding as well. I am not trying to say that people in Toronto are the only ones suffering pain. I want to let you know that this is probably the first time ever that we in Toronto have experienced the kind of pain that the hon. member from Newfoundland has faced over many years. This may sound blasphemous to some of my friends in Toronto, but perhaps it is not a bad thing that for the first time ever some of us in Toronto have experienced pain the way many other regions of the country have faced it for many years.
There may be a chance that this experience we are all going through right now might even bring us closer together. In fact, I am quite happy this afternoon that we are talking about the economy. Because, with all my respect for the Constitution, the people in my community, in my riding, certainly want the unity question settled, but they want us in this House to focus on the economy.
When my friend from Newfoundland talked about coming to his riding and that things were rough there, I understand that. But I will tell you what is happening in Toronto right now and why these cutbacks are of such concern for us.
It doesn't matter whether it is rental housing or the cost of goods, the prices in Toronto are almost double those in most other regions of Canada. So if you receive a welfare payment or an unemployment insurance cheque in Newfoundland, it goes a lot further than it does in Toronto. You are lucky if you can rent a one bedroom apartment in Toronto for $750 a month. I know in my riding that single mothers with kids are renting basement apartments for $1,100, $1,200, $1,300 a month. I know in some regions of the country that just sounds right off the wall, but those are the facts. And so when all of a sudden we are faced with this economic crunch, which we have never faced the likes of before, com-

September 24, 1991
Government Orders
pounded with these cutbacks, it really exacerbates the pain.
So we on this side of the House are concerned about the deficit and the debt. We know it is a tough complex problem, but there is no way we are going to stand up here in this House and just say that this realignment of CAP is something that we take lightly. We are trying to communicate to you that the once secure, rich province of Ontario-and I am only speaking for Ontario right now-is, for the first time ever, on its economic knees. Combined with that, it is natural that we have a morale problem, and we have got to get the morale of this country rolling again. We especially have to get it going in those provinces that traditionally have had an ability during an economic crisis to generate wealth and keep the whole nation moving along.
We talked a little bit about this last Friday and I am going to repeat myself. I do not believe that the way we lift the morale of this country off its knees is by further cuts. I also do not share the view of members of the New Democratic Party which is out to somehow punish the rich. They say they don't pay any taxes-and there are some who don't pay any, and I think we have got to address that-but we are not anti-rich here and we are not anti-business. We need a healthy business climate in order to create jobs, in order to get this economy going again.
I would be very careful about putting a stigma on people who can create wealth in this country. I want to repeat what I said on Friday; we need to attract investment to this country, we don't need investment to flee this country. We need investment, foreign investment especially, to look at this country and see that it is productive, that the morale is good despite the fact that we are facing a tough global economy, and we have got to sort of do what we have to do to pick that morale up. We should not be picking, with respect to the NDP, on corporate Canada and upper income people who we need here to continue to invest and to continue to create jobs, the ones that are left. There are a lot of businesses in this country right now that are on the edge, that are having second thoughts as to whether or not they want to continue their presence in this country and I do not think we should be doing anything that would cause them to second-guess their commitment to investment in this country. We need foreign investment here.
I want to repeat what I said last Friday. The way to attract foreign investment, the way to get the capital we need that will create jobs, that will ultimately look after the deficit and debt that we are all concerned about, is by creating a productive environment where people will have the feeling that they want to go back to work, that they want to learn more and that they want to go back to retrain themselves.
Any cutback in any area that drives people further away from getting up off their knees or getting out of their current slump is counterproductive to the entire economic fabric of this country, so I would humbly request that the Conservative Party reconsider this cutback to the most disadvantaged people in our community.


Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I too, want to participate in the debate on this piece of legislation.
It has received a great deal of attention both in terms of the provincial governments which have been affected by it and, more importantly, the people who will be affected by this legislation.
The purpose of Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan, tends to extend the 5 per cent ceiling on the rate of growth and transfers to the Canada Assistance Plan from two years to five years. This cap applies only to the provinces which do not receive equalization payments. They include British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario.
I think it worth while for members of the House to be reminded of the purpose of the Canada Assistance Plan. I know members on this side of the House have been very concerned about what the Government of Canada was doing with regard to transfer payments.
It goes back to Bill C-69, introduced by this administration, which in effect curtailed the amount of money going to provincial governments to provide what I would deem-perhaps members opposite would interpret it differently-provided necessities for individuals in our society.
Basically, the Canada Assistance Plan was enacted in 1966 to encourage the development and the extension of assistance in welfare services programs throughout the country. Under this plan, the federal government has entered into agreements with the provinces and territories to share the costs incurred by the provinces and
September 24, 1991

municipalities in providing social assistance and welfare services to needy Canadians.
The primary objectives of the Canada Assistance Plan are twofold. One is to support the provision by provinces of adequate assistance and institutional care for persons in need. The second is to support the provisions by provinces of welfare services designated to lessen, remove or prevent the causes and- I underline these words, Mr. Speaker, which I am sure that you as the arbitrator of our proceedings here would want to give careful consideration to-the effects of poverty, child neglect or dependence on public assistance.
When we are talking about the ceiling on payments under the Canada Assistance Plan, we are not only talking about governments, whether they be in Ontario, British Columbia or Alberta. We are also talking about municipalities that in many instances are the first group in our society to be confronted with those hard core social needs which my colleagues who have spoken before me have brought to the attention of this House.
More important than governments and more important than municipalities are the individuals who were involved. As my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood has alluded to, if you are poor in downtown Toronto or in St. John's East, you are still poor.
The hon. member opposite gives us a sigh as if there was a distinction that we as a national government should make for a poor individual in one end of the country from a poor individual in the other. I suggest to the hon. member that if you are hungry, you do not have a job, you cannot find child care for your children, you cannot provide the necessary clothing, the necessities of shelter, lodging and food, if you cannot do that anywhere in the country, we, as a national government, must come to the forefront and participate in trying to resolve those hard core realities of Canadian society.
The response, unfortunately, of the government opposite has been to say: "Look British Columbia, look Alberta, look Ontario, your respective municipalities, the people who reside in those provinces, that is tough. You go out on your own and you do the best you can." What an irresponsible way to proceed. Is that the Canadian mosaic? Is that the generosity and the toler-
Govemment Orders
ance that the Prime Minister not more than a few hours ago talked about? Hardly not, Mr. Speaker.
This decision to cut back in British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta was taken to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. It was stated by judicial minds that the Government of Canada in its unilateral move to put a ceiling on transfer payments to those provinces was illegal.
The Government of Canada appealed that to the Supreme Court of Canada which said very clearly, and note the wording, Mr. Speaker, that: "Yes, the Government of Canada had the legal propriety to make the decision to unilaterally cut back on transfer payments." Yes, the government has that authority, but I ask the question to you, sir, and to members opposite, having the legal authority, does that give you the moral authority? I think the answer is unequivocal for my party that it was wrong for the government to proceed the way it did in this particular instance.
What do we mean when we talk about such things as Canada Assistance? We are talking about dental care for children. We are not talking about dental care for the president of the Bank of Nova Scotia. We are talking about dental care for kids in Ibronto, Mississauga, Hamilton, Calgary, Edmonton and Victoria.
Members opposite say: "Ah well, they are rich those provinces." Those kids are not rich. They have the same needs that your children and my children have. Essential living services for disabled persons, I guess you are saying to disabled persons in Ontario: "Get on a boat and go to Newfoundland because they get equalization payments. You cannot get it in Ontario so move to another province." I mean if that is not Tory logic and Tory sense, it is beyond me, Mr. Speaker. Foster homes for abused children is where we cut into. Safe housing for abused women. Well, we are also talking about subsidized child care for low income families.
Yes, there are lots of Canadians out there who would like to take their shots at Tbronto. There is no question that they would like to do that, but the hard core reality is that if a kid lives in Toronto, Hamilton or anywhere in the province of Ontario and is poor and does not have those basic necessities that I have referred to, or a kid lives in my constituency or anywhere else in this country, a poor kid is a poor kid is a poor kid. I find it very unflattering that government members opposite would try to paint a picture for those citizens by throwing away

September 24, 1991
Government Orders
their lifeline to dignity, to hope for a better future for them and for their children in the years to come.
I would only hope, Mr. Speaker, that members opposite would see their way in understanding that Bill C-69, which was introduced at an earlier time, is wrong both in terms of its substance and the effects it will have on Canadians. Equally so, Bill C-32, which in its very substance, the procedural way in which it has been introduced, the fact that it had to go to the Supreme Court in order to get some legitimacy, is wrong for the country, is wrong for national unity, is wrong because it hurts those Canadians who need the help most, and that is poor income Canadians wherever they may be, British Columbia, Alberta or Ontario.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take a moment to perhaps clarify a few things so that those reading or viewing will not be misled by some inaccurate statements that have been made earlier this afternoon.
It has been continually said, and I should point out not by the hon. member from Broadview-Greenwood, but several members of his own party and certainly the NDP before him, that corporations in this country do not pay tax.
I think it should be clear to Canadians now that clearly, Canadian corporations do pay tax. There are very few reasons why they would not. A number of corporate loopholes have been closed with tax reform since 1987. There really remain, perhaps, one or two reasons why a corporation in a given year might not pay tax. It is simply because they have carried forward losses from the year before or in the year of paying tax, rather than make a profit, that corporation had a loss.
Even with the large corporation tax that was brought in by this government, many large corporations in this country which in a given year had a loss would have to pay tax under the large corporation tax which is essentially a minimum tax for corporations.
So it is really unfair in 1991 to categorize any Canadian corporation as not paying any tax.
The other thing I just wanted to make a brief comment on was this continual reference to cutbacks. Clearly there is no cutback. I do not understand how members can stand in their place and talk of cutbacks when what we are doing with this program is merely restraining the increase in spending and increase in transfers to three provinces to 5 per cent. How can we talk about cutbacks when we increase the funding of these programs. Only in three of the provinces, the three richest provinces in the country, are we in fact restraining the growth of those programs to 5 per cent.
So in those provinces, that is, Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia, the federal transfers under CAP will increase this year up to the 5 per cent.
Limiting the growth of CAP does not put Canada's welfare system at risk. With the federal government's support for provincial social assistance, spending will continue to grow in all provinces, including Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. Fortunately, the economy is growing but we need to continue with responsible fiscal policy to ensure that the recovery is stable and long term. Economic growth and more jobs is the best way to help people regain their financial independence.


Mr. Eugene Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in this debate on Bill C-32, an act to amend the Canada Assistance Plan, introduced by the Conservative government. The purpose of this bill is to extend for two to five years the 5 per cent CAP on transfer payments under the Canada Assistance Plan. This CAP only applies to provinces who do not receive equalization payments at present, that is to say British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario.
In 1984, Prime Minister Mulroney during the election campaign stated with great fanfare that it was a sacred trust. He claimed that he would never touch or cut social assistance, medical programs and the whole social fabric of Canada.
September 24, 1991

Since then, for over seven years, the Prime Minister and his Tory government have made one cut after another. I heard government members say: "Oh well, you know Ontario, Alberta and BC are very rich. They can afford such cuts." Let me tell you that the poor happen to gravitate towards these provinces. Social programs are very strong in these provinces, at least they used to be until this government assumed power.
I had the privilege and the pleasure of serving in the regional government of Ottawa-Carleton. During my tenure, I sat on the Social Services Committee for five years and had the opportunity to realize how many people were in fact gravitating towards our so-called prosperous regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton in order to be able to benefit from social services.

The Social Planning Council for the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton predicts in the two first years of these cutbacks that the Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton will suffer in the amount of $600 million.

I am sure that government members will say: "Oh well, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton is very rich." Well, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton has its share of poor people and provides programs like other municipalities. Some of the social programs we provide are:

Single parent families, mentally and physically disabled persons, the aged, children in care or who need protection because of abuse and neglect, the unemployed, families and individuals in crisis, low income workers, battered women.

The list goes on. I have even seen people who could not pay for their own relatives' funerals. The taxpayers of the region pay for those people.
This means that property and provincial taxes in Ottawa-Carleton, in my riding of Carleton-Gloucester, will go up more and more because when you set a ceiling on assistance, it does not stop there. There are no fewer poor people, welfare recipients, battered women or abused children. It does not reduce their number. The unemployment rate is over 11 per cent. One often
Government Orders
forgets that people on welfare are not counted. The number of people on welfare is phenomenal.
Is the number of welfare recipients reduced by cutting transfer payments to the provinces? The provinces are caught in a vice. The money spent on social programs comes largely from municipal governments. This means that from now on the municipalities will have to pay more for these programs. It means that people will pay through their property tax, which I think should not be used for this kind of program, because some people have lived in a house for a long time and after a while they are on a feed income; they can barely survive themselves without going on welfare. They can barely make ends meet and pay their property tax.
So social programs will be further abused instead of making it proportional throughout Canada. It must be paid for. If people are in distress, they must be helped. They can be helped by taking money out of the left, right or back pocket, but money must be found to help them or they are left behind.
Since there do not seem to be such heartless people in Canada, efforts will certainly be made to contribute through the property tax, but it is not the right tax for this kind of service.
We talk about global competition, work, our students having to learn more trades; we talked about free trade with the United States, but now we talk about free trade with the Mexicans. Soon we will talk about competition with the Orient and with Europe. Do we have the students and the skilled tradespeople we really need in our industries? Will cutting education help our industries?
It is a negative approach. We must spend on research and education. It pays dividends. The more educated people are, the more skills they have, the more productive they can be and the more tax they can pay to help the whole machinery of government, the whole government, the whole country.
As for medical services, by cutting federal-provincial transfer payments, are we helping our hospital system or is this Conservative government trying to imitate the medical system in the United States, which is divided into two classes, one for those who can pay for medical services and another for those who cannot and are left out in the street? That is not how we do things here in Canada. We have always spoken of sharing. Our philosophy of life is sharing.


Government Orders
Here is a government that refuses to share its wealth for education, for the provinces' medical system and for welfare recipients. Instead, it prefers to share their money by giving contracts to the very rich all over the country. My experience on the Public Accounts Committee shows me that there is a lot of waste in federal government contracts.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I am not happy to be speaking in this House on this bill. I do not think this is the kind of legislation that this House should be seized with. Clearly it is an attack on three of our provinces in terms of their ability to assist people in need, clearly an attack on their ability to provide the necessary social programs to deal with the upheaval caused by this government in fact through its economic policies.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-32 allows for the extension of the 5 per cent limit on the Canada Assistance Plan for the provinces of B.C., Alberta and Ontario. I think people will also remember that Bill C-69 capped CAP at 5 per cent of the federal increases until 1992. This bill extends it to 1995. This is the only mechanism by which the federal government funds social assistance and social services. The government introduced these measures in the name of fiscal restraint and said that the rich provinces that are affected can afford the cap. Well 50 per cent of Canada's poor live in B.C., Alberta, and Ontario. It does not matter where you live. If you are poor, you are poor and do not have enough money to provide the basics of life: food, clothing, shelter.
The irony is that, particularly from Ontario's point of view, the same government that is saying that fat cat Ontario can afford it is the one which attacked the budget of the Ontario government. It found itself in a situation of having to have a deficit. It recognized that expenditures were increasing, particularly in the area of social services. At the same time because of the loss of over 385,000 jobs that revenues were declining, this government has the audacity to attack that decision in order to try and protect the people of Ontario from the impacts of the recession.
In fact, a very major portion of that $9.7 billion deficit is directly attributable to this cap on CAP. It has reduced cash flows back to the taxpayers of Ontario who paid them in the first place. This is the end result of this particular legislation.
I think it is fair to suggest because B.C., Alberta and Ontario have had an image of being prosperous that when people in Atlantic Canada, from the prairies in terms of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, or people from the north find they cannot get employment in their own province or territory, they look to these three for opportunities. A lot of time they go there "on spec" only to find that the recession is worse in Ontario in particular than it is in their own province, and that there are no jobs. They end up on social services and the provinces end up having to pick up more and more of the costs.
I want to remind you that it is not just provincial income taxpayers who are bearing the burden. It is municipal property taxpayers who pick up 20 per cent of the cost. I know that in my own municipality of Thunder Bay the cost to the property taxpayer has risen enormously. We have had to add more social workers, more clerks to process social assistance, more people to help those who have found themselves not only without a job but without the necessary income to support their families.
In a lot of ways they are also victims of another policy of this government, and that is the reduction in unemployment insurance benefits.
In my community in the last three months alone we have had one pulp and paper mill close, putting 450 people directly out of work. We have had another mill lay-off in the neighbourhood of 400 to 500 employees permanently. We have the Port Arthur shipyards which is down to about 60 workers this week with 100 or so laid off. We have the grain industry that is in difficult times. We have a minor rebound right now, but we do not have
1,000	or 1,200 people handling grain in Thunder Bay any more. Most of those people have lost their jobs and we are down to a permanent work force of about 400. CanCar Rail which is between contracts has hundreds laid off, and at the other end of the riding we have one lumber mill which shut down in November. We were able to get it started again this spring through the assistance of the Ontario government. We have a second

September 24, 1991

one in Atikokan that is currently shut down and we are trying to find a new owner in order to get it started again.
The community of Atikokan had 60 per cent unemployment this winter. The unemployment rate in Thunder Bay is in the double digits.
The point I am making is that all these people had expected to get decent treatment by the federal government when it came to unemployment insurance, only to find that their deferred earnings in the form of vacation pay, deferred earnings in the form of severance pay, counted against them. More and more people are finding themselves on welfare much earlier than they should have been.
It is the property taxpayer and it is the provincial income taxpayer who are being forced to pick up the extra costs, or it is the provincial governments that are being forced to pare even further in terms of the assistance that the provinces can provide municipalities, hospitals, school boards, et cetera.
This legislation we are dealing with today is part of a systematic destruction of our social service network in this country. It is a very blatant attempt to pass the problems from the federal level to the provincial level. As we have seen in the past, the Tories have just learned from the Liberals. They just pass it right on to the municipalities where the only choices they have are cutting services, raising property taxes or raising user fees.
It is a systematic attack. They say they are doing this in the name of restraint, in the name of the deficit. A Statistics Canada study showed how erroneous that kind of statement is. Only 6 per cent of the deficit is due to program expenditures. Forty-four per cent is due to the kind of tax breaks that are given to the powerful and wealthy in this country, changes to the tax system to allow more and more loopholes to exist, more and more people to avoid not just part of their taxes but all of their taxes.
We as a country suffer because they are not paying their fair share of our programs. Whether it is social services, whether it is defence, whether it is transportation, any of the services provided directly or indirectly by the federal government, they suffer because of the kind
Private Members' Business
of taxation policies that this government operates under and this government believes in.
The bill itself will make it very difficult for new programs to be developed, to be established. Very clearly it shows how the government said one thing at election time knowing full well that it was going to another thing.
It looks like my time has run out for the moment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: It being 5.47 o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West) moved: that Bill C-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code (terminally ill persons), be read a second time and referred to Legislative Committee H.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill is a life issue. So many times life issues are happy to talk about, like the life issue this week in my family is the birth of my grandson, Joshua Robert Christopher Payne, the first bom of my only daughter. I have got all my pictures here. I want to show them and I want to tell the world about this joyous event so that the Chair can share with us, our family and the world the great joy and celebration about the new young Canadian who came into the world this week.


An hon. member:: Are you a grandfather?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I am a grandfather, that is right. That is true very much of some of the joyous issues about life, the process of beginning and an end that leads to a beginning that leads to an end, those great cycles.
There are some issues in life that are not quite so easy to talk about. The recent death of my parents, and the death of one's parents is a natural occasion for all to experience who are around this age, I find very hard to talk about here because it still hurts a fair amount.

September 24, 1991
Private Members' Business
If we are talking about that death or we are talking about the death of friends or family or those who are close to us, it is something we kind of put aside. If we are talking about your death and all of those listening today, that is something we do not talk about. We do not usually talk about it until it is a bit too late, and then a person is very ill and we do not think we should bring the matter up.
I think it is our responsibility, as legislators who do regulate through law life and death issues from cradle to grave, to confront this issue on behalf of the people we serve here.
I think most people have a romantic thought about death hoping that they will be one of the lucky ones, that somehow they. will fall asleep painlessly one night, quietly with one's family and friends around, at peace with ourselves, our family, our friends and the world, a Utopian kind of ending. This is an ending that has come to us through history.
John Keats described it this way in the early 1800s: "Darling I listen; and for many a time I have been in love with easeful death, calling him soft names in many a mused rhyme, to take into the air my quiet breath; now more than ever seems rich to die, to cease upon the midnight with no pain".
This is a very romantic and comfortable thought about death, but Shakespeare was probably a little more right when he said: "Last scene of all that ends this strange eventful history is second childishness and mere oblivion, sans teeth, sans eyes, sans taste, sans everything".
Those were views of the older days when death was an easier, more simple, natural process. A people's faith in technology and their search for eternal life know no bounds in the modem world.
In this new age of advancing medical technology in which death finds no easy piece or end and life is extended again and again and again, one can sustain their dying connected to machines and strapped to their hospital bed, rotting and suffering until all or most of their body parts are gone and then what is left can be frozen and refrigerated into eternity until some kind of technology is going to find a new life for that remaining piece.
For those who wish to extend their lives in that way I give them their right and their privilege, but for me and I think for many others, if I am lying in a comatose state or losing my senses and losing my mobility and my capacity to think, or as Shakespeare says "sans everything", there is a time when enough is enough. When will science and the state allow my will and God's will to prevail and allow a natural death? When does natural life end? When does death begin in this modem age or, for the Christian ethic, when will technology end and allow the individual to call for an end to treatment and suffering and put himself or herself in the hands of God so that the beginning of death leads to the ending of life and the beginning of a new life after death?
Who will make that tough, tough decision in this modem technological world? Will it be the state that decides for you and me? Will it be the medical profession, the family, the pastor or some other individual or the individual himself?
I would hope that it would be a combination of these people expressing themselves in the format of a written health care directive or a living will.
That kind of clear process eases the pain of death not just for the person who must pass through it, but for those who are left behind who have understood it and thought about it before the event.
It ends the bickering, arguing and the hurt of families to some degree, and I think that is what we want to try to do. We want our most difficult life experience of all to be eased from the pain and suffering and to sustain the maximum quality of life to the longest point that we can. At that point there should be a choice of allowing natural death to occur.
This bill deals with amendments to the Criminal Code of Canada. Specifically it deals with the serious subject of the right of individuals who are in the latter stages of terminal illness to refuse and withdraw from medical treatment in order that the timing of a more natural death may preclude unnecessary pain and suffering.
In essence, this bill allows all of us in the House of Commons to address this question. This bill is not a be all and an end all. It is not the final answer. It is an opportunity to raise the subject. It is being raised by our constituents and it is being raised by the Canadian Medical Association and the bar associations. They say that we need a clarification and that our courts want to know. Our medical profession wants to know.

They want some clear direction from the Government of Canada and a clarification of the Criminal Code of Canada. This bill attempts to do that. It attempts to allow individuals to die with a sense of dignity and purpose, sustaining a quality of life that is acceptable and understandable to that dignity.
Advances in medical technology have allowed terminally ill patients to live well beyond and longer than is naturally possible. I want to continue that. I am for the extension of the maximum quality of life to the very end, and I will want that for my life and for the life of everyone I know.
The ability to live longer can also result in a diminished quality of life for those who suffer from degenerative and incurable diseases in particular. As a society and a government, we can no longer avoid this issue.
Canada is becoming an aging society. We are seeing a growth in incurable diseases like cancer, Alzheimers, AIDS, and there is a rising demand in our society for self-determination over the length of one's medical treatment. Yet there exists virtually no governmental regulations or judicial guidance concerning the right of the terminally ill patient to refuse or withdraw treatment.
We need to clarify this in the code and then make way for the living will process that has been passed now in Ontario and is being considered in other jurisdictions.
I take this fundamental position. As a Parliament we must take the opportunity to pass legislation which provides terminally ill patients with the power to determine when they no longer wish to be subject to medical treatment. It sounds so much like common sense that I cannot imagine that there would be inhibitions to that in the law.
Moreover, such legislation should provide the medical profession with the right to do so by the patient or that patient's designated care giver. Terminally ill patients must have the right to determine their own length of treatment. Physicians must not be held liable for following their own patients' wishes.
The Canadian Medical Association Ethics Committee addressed this in its convention this summer and basically it has come up saying the same kind of thing,
Private Members' Business
establishing that this as an ethical practice but one that is probably slightly ahead of the law.
At this point I would like to outline the state of legislation in Canada on this issue and what I feel can be done to make improvements.
A strict reading of the Criminal Code would indicate that withholding treatment from the terminally ill might constitute a criminal offence. The Criminal Code has a number of sections which either indicate or seem to indicate that doctors must provide their patients with full treatment regardless of circumstances.
Section 14 of the code reads: "No person is entitled to consent to have death inflicted on him", while sections 45 and 215 further impede the right of patients to refuse treatment or doctors to follow their patients' wishes.
According to Law Reform Commission of Canada working paper 28, cessation of treatment may be an illegal act under a number of provisions of the Criminal Code, ranging from homicide to failure to provide the necessities of life, or even aiding suicide.
It may come as a surprise to many Canadians that there are no laws in Canada which permit physicians to stop administering medical treatment under any circumstances, even at the patient's request. There are no laws allowing doctors to halt treatment if it is no longer serving any useful purpose or is clearly no longer in the best interests of the patient.
The effects of lack of clear laws on the medical profession and its patients is of great concern to many of those who have moved into the powerless state of terminal illness. My outreach to various medical and patient groups has led me to the conclusion that the requested withdrawal of medical treatment for terminally ill patients merely reflects what is common practice in many hospitals and palliative care units across Canada.
My legislation that I am presenting today in many cases would have the effect of legitimizing common practice. In Canada to date there is no record of conviction of a doctor for shortening a patient's life by refusing to provide treatment, which is not to say there would or could not still be convictions or charges. However, the result of potential sources of criminal liability has provided great instability in the medical profession on this issue and has inevitably caused some

September 24, 1991
Private Members' Business
doctors not to cany out their patient's wishes to halt medical treatment because of their fear of the law.
Currently some doctors will make it their practice to sign a "do not resuscitate" order to end medical treatment at a patient's request, and still others have to be coerced into doing so. Others will simply refuse to stop treatment for fear of legal consequences.
This legal void may already have encouraged discrepancies in the quality of medical practices and services throughout the country. It may have led to life and death issues and decisions based on ethical position of a particular doctor rather than as guided through legislation.
Under the current law, many people who decide to withdraw from medical treatment are forced to die alone because loved ones fear being charged under the Criminal Code for aiding and abetting suicide, or even manslaughter if they simply remain with the patient. It may be more than the patient, it might be a mother, father, brother or sister. If they stay with them, they are afraid of prosecution.
It is truly unjust, unfair and harshly cruel to deny a terminally ill patient the comfort of their loved ones in their final moments.
What this legislation does is provide for the right of terminally ill patients to refuse further medical treatment and the right of physicians to follow their patients' wishes in these circumstances.
As concern for the right to die with dignity has become widespread, and as a greater portion of our population reaches old age, more Canadians are looking to formulate documents such as living wills or advanced health care directives to make it clear at what point of terminal illness they would no longer wish to receive medical treatment.
I think it is time that we act, that we act now. This is not my specific concern now, but it is the concern of all of us. It is the responsibility of all of us to remove as far as the law can the pain, the suffering of a person who must pass through this time, to remove some of the fear, some of the uncertainty, and to assure that quiet,
peaceful death that is, of course, the object and hope for all of us.
I recommend this bill to you, Mr. Speaker, and I look for support from all parties in the House of Commons to assure that it is carried forward.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Fraser Valley West for asking me to speak on Private Members' Bill C-203, an act to amend the Criminal Code (terminally ill persons). Although I rise as the Liberal critic for National Health and Welfare, there is another plain on which I also studied this particular bill. It is a bill that could affect personally and profoundly physicians and members of the health care teams.
As a physician by professional background, I have stood at the bedside of patients and upon request written a "no resuscitation" order on the chart. Writing those two words runs against my first prerogative as a doctor, knowing that first and foremost it is my duty to sustain life. But life of what quality, I ask?
Is life in a coma, fed intravenously and given breath through a respirator, with brain activity almost non-existent, the kind of life I, myself, would choose before death? What of a life where the body constantly contorts in pain, racked by spasms and unrelenting agony? I would refuse to live like that unless I was sure at the end I could be healthy once again.
To be healthy again is not a possibility for terminally ill people at the final stage of their diseases. It could be Parkinson's, AIDS, cancer, cystic fibrosis, or any number of horrific illnesses that brings patients to the end of their lives. It is at this time that the manner of our deaths comes to the forefront, and I think it is being addressed by this bill.
I believe in the patient's right to die with dignity. But there are a myriad of aspects to the right to die question. These aspects need more redress than this bill may allow. Issues like suicide, death for economic reasons, pressure by family members, the feeling of burdensomeness and that the dying are a strain on the health care system, all must be resisted. I believe the possibility exists that people could be pressured into selecting a quick death and use the medical system to terminate

their lives, and that must be resisted too. No one should feel pressured to die for convenience.
The present bill hopes to add section 217.1 to the Criminal Code. This new paragraph states:
Nothing in sections 14,45, 216 and 217 of the Criminal Code shall be interpreted as (a) requiring qualified medical practitioners to commence or continue to administer surgical or medical treatment to a person who clearly requests that such treatment not be commenced or continued.
This paragraph alone could lead to complacency, I must point out, in patient care. An elderly woman may be languishing in her hospital bed, with a "no resuscitation" order on her chart, when she is struck by cardiac arrest. The nursing staff stand by, obeying the order, but making the woman as comfortable as possible, knowing this moment was imminent.
They call a doctor but not the crash emergency cart. The heart monitor begins to flatline and she is gone. Quickly dispatched, as were her wishes. Then an autopsy report reveals the woman's cardiac arrest was caused by a clogged respiration pipe, or a piece of food lodged in her throat. Is this the way she wanted to die? Does it make a difference? To medical ethicists, to caring staff, patients and family, the difference in manner of death would be viewed as wrong.
How would the Criminal Code deal with incidents like these? Could the hospital be charged with negligence and malpractice? Should it be? It is a situation like this I greatly fear. Every "no resuscitation" order I write on a chart is followed by lengthy details, qualifying this order after consultation with patient, nursing staff, other doctors and the patient's family. Life is precious when there is little left to live.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member who has the floor but I must request the collaboration of all hon. members because the Chair and the people watching us can hardly hear. Thank you for your collaboration.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I repeat: life is precious when there is little left to live. To be taken prematurely, to be taken at all, is tragic.
I would like to think that this type of bill would never need to be introduced, but this is not an ideal world. Technology has advanced at a dizzying pace. We have
Private Members' Business
machines that breathe, feed, clean the blood, start the heart and pump blood. But, ironically, over a dozen people in the past five years have died in hospitals because they were secured with restraining straps and left unattended. No, this is not an ideal world. All the technology in the world are only as good as the caring staff that administers it.
Faith in the medical system is key. Patients and doctors must consult, communicate and understand the wishes of each other. There should be no case where a person is made to suffer because of heroic treatments which may, in the end, serve no purpose. There would not be a case where a patient gives up when there is hope, and sometimes there is still hope when people choose to die. This is a fear of doctors and nurses who have been trained to save, comfort and ease pain. They also cannot complacently accept death. But they know they have to allow death to happen, but must insist not to will death to happen.
Maybe it would be easier not to care as much, to hasten death, to dispense pain killers and watch the light gradually fade from a patient's eyes instead of desperately trying to save.
To the best of my knowledge, doctors do not, as noted in paragraph 217.1(b) "commence or continue to administer surgical or medical treatment to a person where such treatment is medically useless and not in the best interests of the person".
To do so, against an advance directive of the patient, would be an assault. It is a statement like that which throws suspicion on the medical community, and to suggest a medical team would treat someone in that manner is misleading and unfair.
Already there are guidelines instructing doctors how to proceed in such cases. The Canadian Medical Association believes "the right to accept or reject any treatment or procedure ultimately resides with the patient or a duly empowered proxy. The Association also believes that this includes the right to accept or refuse resuscita-tive as well as life saving and/or life sustaining measures in general, would they become medically indicated."
Mr. Speaker, doctors are there to help the ill. Palliative care is meant to make the dying as comfortable as possible. The health care system, under-funded as it may be, is still filled with people who place the patient first. So, the patient must also give consideration to the doctor. My fear is that the relationship between patient and doctor may dissolve into one based on legalities. The

Private Members' Business
patients may no longer trust a physician to act in his or her interests, and legally instruct the physicians with living wills. I think in all cases this type of legal document is unnecessary, that instead the doctors, nurses and patients can use the advance directive to determine the course of care for a patient.
Matters involving life and death cannot be made in the office of the lawyer entirely. They must be made in consultation with a doctor, and they must be updated as technology and the prognosis for diseases changes.
Another concern I now have is for the education of doctors in matters of death and dying. There are many faces of these two. It takes many years of experience to recognize them. Medical students must begin with a solid background in the care for the terminally ill and incapacitating diseases. A doctor fresh out of medical school may not have the knowledge to question the request of a patient or recognize the shades of dying, whether it be heart attack or trauma related to choking. Consultation with more experienced doctors should be necessary in this case.
In fact, consultation is always a necessity. The wishes of the patient in regard to death with dignity must be clarified with all staff who attend to that patient. There is a fine line between allowing terminally ill patients to die with dignity at their request and aiding in that death.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in support of the bill which has been proposed before the House this afternoon by the member for Fraser Valley West. In rising to support the principle of this legislation, because that is, after all, what we are doing at this stage of debate at second reading in the House, I want to pay tribute to the member for bringing before this House an issue which is both sensitive and important, important to millions and millions of Canadians who had to confront the issues which are addressed in this legislation.
I want to note as well that my colleague and spokesperson for health for the federal New Democrats, the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing, had very much hoped to be here to participate in this debate, but unfortunately he is not able to be here. As the member for Fraser Valley West knows, he has himself tabled a private member's bill. It differs somewhat from the bill which has been proposed by the member for Fraser
Valley West, but certainly in principle it is very much in the same spirit.
I would hope that this House will in fact allow both the bill of the member for Fraser Valley West and the bill of the member for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing to be referred to a committee of this House so that for the first time we as elected representatives will have an opportunity to hear from Canadians about this very important issue. Indeed it is long overdue.
I do not think we need much evidence of the interest and the depth of concern of Canadians about this issue when we look, for example, at the book by Derek Humphrey Final Exit has been on the top of the best seller list for some time. Obviously Canadians are deeply concerned about the issues that arise.
I rise to urge this House to act on this legislation in a non-partisan way, to send it to committee, to give Canadians an opportunity to be heard on this important question.
I want to note that at the present time in Canada, as the member for Fraser Valley West has pointed out, the Criminal Code of Canada was adopted in 1892 and has not changed in any significant respect on this important issue. It specifically prohibits any person from aiding the suicide of another, even giving advice about methods of suicide, which can result in up to 14 years of imprisonment. In fact, by the current definition in the Criminal Code, euthanasia is indistinguishable from murder since anyone who clearly intends to take the life of another and does so is guilty of culpable homicide.
These laws have been studied over the years by a number of different bodies. I know the Canadian Medical Association has studied them, the Law Reform Commission, the Canadian Bar Association, and I think it would be very helpful for this House to give an opportunity to representatives of these organizations to appear before the House and give their thoughts on this bill and its principle.
The fundamental principle here is that we must give people the right to make this decision for themselves, this most basic literally life or death decision. This does not in any way diminish our respect for life. Indeed, it is a symbol of our respect for the quality of life and a recognition that people should also be allowed to die with dignity.
September 24, 1991

I want to pay tribute to those groups in this country who have for many years struggled with this question and who have put this question on the agenda in our country, groups such as Dying with Dignity, the Right to Die Society of Canada, a newly founded group in Victoria which, reading from its leaflet, "affirms the right of any mature individual who is chronically or terminally ill to choose the time, place and means of his or her death. We categorically reject the notion that human beings are to be subjected to the risk of a protracted period of misery and humiliation due to modem medical technology and/or government cutbacks and health and welfare funding".
I would know that this does not in any way preclude our support for those individuals, dedicated hard working individuals in our country, who are working to allow people through palliative care to die with dignity. Indeed we support those groups. I think of groups such as Casey House in Toronto and others that are working incredibly hard and with incredible dedication to ensure that those final days in fact are days of dignity. For those who choose that, we must respect that choice.
There are others who do not have that choice. I think, for example, of my former friend, my late friend Mitch Jacobson who died after a slow, agonizing and painful death. He died of AIDS. He died in Elisabeth-Bruyere Health Centre in Ottawa. I will never forget my friend-blind, he had no senses left, no taste, no feel, he was almost deaf-crying out saying: "For God's sake, stop this pain, stop this suffering",
Surely to God, we must allow a man or a woman to avoid that kind of death, to allow themselves to make the decision for themselves, to end that terrible agonizing pain. As Mitch said: "Let me go". I could not let him go. His doctor could not let him go because under the present law that would be considered a criminal offence.
What is the crime in our society? Surely the far greater crime is not allowing men and women in situations such as that to make the decision for themselves.
Private Members' Business
There were some who were critical of another friend of mine, David Lewis, who also tragically died of AIDS. I am a member, as a gay man, of a community which has been devastated by this epidemic. If I speak with some emotion, it is because I have seen the lives of too many of my friends destroyed by this epidemic for which governments have not done nearly enough.
If at the end David Lewis chose to go with dignity, as he did, surrounded by his friends at a time of his choosing, who are we to say that he was wrong, that he was a criminal, that those who supported him were in some way criminals?
I want to appeal to this House to recognize that this is an issue that Canadians are deeply concerned about. Indeed in August of last year a Gallup poll found that some 78 per cent of Canadians believe that a doctor should be allowed by law to end the life of a patient who has an incurable disease that causes great suffering, if the patient has made a formal request in writing.
I believe that fundamentally. I would go further and support the system in Holland which allows for active euthanasia. I think that we will want to hear evidence before the committee on this issue as well, on the extent to which we should be prepared to move as a society to recognize the rights of people to die with dignity.
A recent study from Holland showed that 11.2 per cent of the patients in the final stages of AIDS died by euthanasia. Recently it has been estimated the figure is as high as 25 per cent.
I want to conclude by once again congratulating the hon. member for Fraser Valley West and my own colleague for Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing for the vision and the leadership that they have shown in putting this important question on the parliamentary agenda. I want to appeal to all of my colleagues to recognize the cries of those in our country who say that enough is enough, that we must heed those cries, we must allow people to die with dignity, and surely we must allow this Parliament to give those people a voice to be heard.

September 24, 1991
Private Members' Business


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a privilege, as the other members have mentioned, to be able to speak on this very important topic today. I am speaking in support of the bill. I believe that it does assist the medical profession in clearing many of the grey areas that have been enumerated today.
Just what is the legal position of a physician in an area where he perhaps removes treatment which could keep the patient alive, or perhaps provides treatment which in order to alleviate pain or suffering may have the side effect of hastening that person's death?
As the hon. member from Fraser Valley West mentioned in his speech, North Americans want to deny that. They do not want to face it, yet we have seen many, many patients in the past who have welcomed the idea of being permitted to leave their pain, suffering and sickness.
In the past, we have seen many physicians who have been criticized. I do not know of anyone who has been actually sued, but they have been taking a lot of criticism because they did not make heroic efforts in order to keep somebody alive who in the physician's opinion had a quality of life not worth the torment that the patient would have to go through.
Very often in the medical profession you are told to do something, it does not matter if it is good or not, you just have to do something. I think that this law permits a physician to do what he thinks is the best thing. Perhaps that is to do nothing but to make sure that that patient is relieved of the suffering.
We are talking in this law today about passive euthanasia. The previous speaker talked about a more active type where death is brought on by a physician. In this particular bill today, we are discussing passive euthanasia. When we use that word, it brings of course a great emotional outburst from many of us.
We have heard today that technology prolongs life, but we do reach that period when as we have mentioned life is intolerable. Perhaps it is nausea, pain or various types of distress and the patient no longer has any will to live. The physician is then faced with the ability to withhold drugs which would prolong the life.
I think here of something like antibiotics in the case of an Alzheimers victim with pneumonia. We can prolong that life. The patient may not know what we have done,
but we feel that is unwise, at the same time, perhaps by giving a drug to relieve the pain of a sufferer.
This is mentioned in the second part of this bill, that is, by providing sometimes large amounts of a sedative or morphine that we have the effect of hastening that death.
I thought it would be worth while just to comment for the rest of my time on the stand the Canadian Medical Association has taken. In 1984 as a result of a joint meeting between the Canadian Nursing Association, the Canadian Hospital Association and the Canadian Medical Association, they came forward with a list of directives.
It is called The Resuscitation of the Terminally III and was published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal, Volume 136 on February 15, 1987. This has been updated as recently as this last summer at its convention in Toronto.
Because of the shortness of time, I do not have time to read all of it, but I would like to introduce some of the highlights of the report that was produced. It says: "The Canadian Medical Association believes that the right to accept or reject any treatment or procedure ultimately resides with the patient or a duly empowered proxy. The Association also believes that this includes the right to accept or refuse resuscitative as well as life saving and/or sustaining measures in general should they become medically indicated.
Furthermore, the Association believes that under certain circumstances it may be appropriate that a patient indicate the position to other relevant persons by means of an advanced directive whether the patient wants resuscitative measures taken should the occasion for the use arise."
What we are referring to is better known as the living will.
The Medical Association goes on. "The Association is firmly convinced that the decision to accept or reject any medical treatment or procedure should be only made after an appropriate consultative process with a duly qualified health care professional."
In other words, it is essential that the facts be fully discussed with the patient, with the family, and the pros and cons discussed so that the patient understands fully just what he or she is signing.

The medical association also recommends that during the course of the person's illness that these orders be reviewed periodically. In other words, circumstances change, the patient's condition changes, so this should not be taken as a permanent form but should be reviewed periodically.
In another section it says: "If an advance directive is so general as to apply to all possible circumstances that could arise, it is usually so vague as to give no usable direction to the physician." In either case, physicians will have to rely on their professional judgment to reach a decision. This permits a physician in certain circumstances, perhaps something happens such as the member from Winnipeg mentioned, somebody choking on a piece of meat, where they also have a cancer which everybody felt was going to take their life. In this circumstance, the physician would be permitted to overrule the patient's request. It says: " The association therefore suggests that physicians who are involved in the consultative process surrounding such a decision make sure that patients understand the limits that are inherent in such advance decision making."
It goes on further: "Finally, the association suggests that physicians who are involved in the consultative process surrounding advance directives encourage their patients to identify a specific person who will have the legal power to act as a proxy decision maker for the patient should the need for clarification of an advance directive arise."
The association also encourages physicians to inform their patients that in an emergency situation it is not always possible to get in touch with this duly appointed proxy to seek clarification about the advance directive should that prove necessary. Patients should therefore be encouraged to make these directives as clear as possible.
We can see that this is just a small part of the work that the Canadian Medical Association has outlined. I think it would be worth while to review at this time their guidelines for the decision making that the patient has to make.
The first one is, Mr. Speaker, that a patient has the right to accept or reject any treatment or procedure proposed by a physician. This includes CPR, or any other life saving and/or sustaining measure. In other words, the patient is in control. The proposer of the bill mentioned that the patient at the end of life frequently has no control over what happens to them. What this is
Private Members' Business
doing is making sure that the patient is in control at a time when it is most important.
When a competent patient informs an attending physician that such measures should not be undertaken, the physician shall make sure that the patient understands the nature and consequences of this decision. This is not something to be made on an emotional basis, but a result of calm deliberation, and it is up to the physician to make sure that happens.
If, as a result of this communicative process the patient reaffirms this decision, the physician shall record this decision on the patient's health record.
When a patient is incompetent, an appropriate proxy decision maker informs the attending physician of the decision not to engage in resuscitative or life saving and/or sustaining measure. A physician shall engage in the same consultative and communicative process with the proxy as though it were with the patient himself or herself. If as a result of this, a proxy still insists on a request not to apply resuscitative and/or sustaining measures, the physician shall record this decision on the patient's health record.
Mr. Speaker, when this comes to the committee, as I hope it will, there are other guidelines that have been produced by these bodies to assist in the regulations that would naturally follow.
In summary, we feel that the welfare of the patient is the primary object. It is his or her care and comfort that we are looking for, and I believe the quality of life which this bill is protecting is all important.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, at this point in time I want to say that I listened very carefully to the member for Fraser Valley West. He certainly raised a lot of important issues. There are some negatives to proposed Bill C-203, which is intended to provide protection for physicians in a number of treatment situations where the patient is terminally ill and where it is said that the legal position is not clear enough to permit the physician to treat or even refrain from treating without the fear of becoming involved in a possible criminal offence.
Similar principles were recommended by the Law Reform Commission of Canada. In the same report the commission recommended against decriminalizing voluntary active euthanasia and was in favour of continuing to treat it as a culpable homicide. The commission also recommended that the offence of counselling, aiding,

September 24, 1991
Private Members' Business
abetting suicide should not be removed from the Criminal Code or even, indeed, be revised.
Therefore, it has become apparent that it was unnecessary to legislate the principles recommended in the commission's report, because there are already recognized and generally accepted in the case of terminally ill people.
We do have problems within the Criminal Code. It is a criminal offence with regard to euthanasia. Over a number of years now, and I will not go into how long ago, I was involved in a nursing career and did spend quite a bit of time in certain situations that I found extremely difficult where people certainly did suffer a great deal.
It is hard for the family, it is hard for medical people and nurses to see their patients, their loved ones suffering and yet, there are complications with regard to providing legislation that allows physicians the right to practice euthanasia.
I also listened to my colleague from Delta who spoke on the Canadian Medical Association's position with regard to answering some of the issues raised in Bill C-203. I spent a great deal of time listening and he has raised major issues that I think a legislative committee could look into more thoroughly and come up with suggestions.
What I am also saying is, let us get ahead of the issue. I cannot tell you if it will be three, five or ten years before this particular issue is debated. In certain provincial jurisdictions there have been some recommendations. Legally, within our legislation, within the Criminal Code, we have nothing to protect physicians from making a decision with regard to euthanasia. Therefore, it is difficult.
Today physicians are in danger of being charged. We recognize this. There are competency questions of whether the people in making living wills are competent or are not competent for signing agreements and substitute consents. I realize that a lot of these issues have to be looked at more carefully.
There is civil liability in the area of medical practices and a lot of issues within the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms that we have to be aware of that could prove to be contrary to the bill my colleague has put forward.
I know that today, in the Criminal Code, we cannot accept this. I think we have to take a good look at it. As I said, in my years as a medical professional and also having relatives in senior citizens homes, it is very, very difficult to face death. I do not think any of us here want to see anybody suffer. There can be criteria worked out that I feel can be accepted, not only by the medical fraternity, but the community in general, all assisting health care institutions and the religious areas.
Getting in touch with the church I think is most important.
I just want to say that the negatives are so great that I would like to compliment the member for Fraser Valley and would look forward to seeing this bill discussed in committee.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can just get unanimous consent to conclude with a one-minute remark on the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Members have heard the suggestion. Does the House give its unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member has one minute.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I support the principle of the bill because it is providing an opportunity for Canadians to examine the issue, which is very vital, and by bringing it to the consciousness of Canadians we can address a very vital issue.
I would just like to end by saying that when we examine this bill let us remember the work of the Manitoba Law Reform Commission issued this year, as well as the paramount principle of medical ethics.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I came into the House only moments ago after a committee meeting, not even knowing that this debate was taking place today. But I do not want to let the opportunity go by without expressing at least some concerns that I have.

I wish that the bill would go to committee because I am not against us examining the issue, but I as a person who believes very strongly in the sanctity of life am very concerned with anything that could be done whereby we would start-and I will dare use the words-to play God in any way.
I am concerned with what we see in some European jurisdictions. I am thinking in particular of Holland, a great country but one in which too many decisions, I believe, are taken by members of the medical profession to end human life. That whole subject disturbs me immensely.
We have had debate in the past on other related issues. I am thinking of the debate we had on capital punishment. I said where I stood on that one and that was against capital punishment for the protection of human life. We have had a debate on abortion and again I stood in the same position.
Today I express my concerns with this bill, but I am not one who will block it from going to committee because I do think we have to talk of the issue because it is a very profound one. I nevertheless want to indicate to the House how deeply I feel about the issue. I am sure that other members feel just as strongly as I do, but that should not prevent us from discussing an issue so important as this one.

Some might say, Mr. Speaker, that the issue is much more complex because, with the advance of medicine, who can tell at what stage of life a person dies from natural causes versus being artificially prolonged? Besides, what do we mean by "natural"? In the absence of this information, it becomes very difficult to determine what is not. That is why, notwithstanding my deepest convictions, I would like this matter to be referred to a parliamentary committee. I hope that the government will see to it that it will be considered, that the full process is applied so that witnesses can be heard.
Mr. Speaker, I also wish that the witnesses who will testify before the committee not to be biased one way or the other, no more my way than the other way. I want a real debate to take place, where all views on the issue can be expressed, because I believe that everyone must be heard, not only those who support a legislation such as this one. We should also hear from those who are against.
Adjournment Debate
Again, Mr. Speaker, I saw what happened in a previous debate, the abortion debate, and I am not convinced that the whole process was carried out impartially. I detected some degree of bias in that debate and I want none in this one. I would want us to be impartial and all witnesses to be heard.

I do not want to speak any longer because I do not want to prolong this debate. I wish the issue to go to committee.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee H.

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

Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, in June I rose in the House and asked the President of Treasury Board if the minister would tell us just what the government's commitment was to pay equity for federal government employees.
The minister responded:
I would like to reassure the hon. member that pay equity stays
there, I mean will be implemented.
In 1984 the Public Service Alliance of Canada filed a complaint with Canada's Human Rights Commission on behalf of 50,000 members of the clerical and regulatory CR group.
It was only after that action that the Treasury Board invited all federal public service unions to participate in a joint equal pay study. The equal pay adjustment which the Treasury Board announced for the CR and ST groups in January 1990 were only one-quarter to one-third of what they were entitled to and owed.

September 24, 1991
Adjournment Debate
The adjustments announced for the EU group in April, 1990, were about a half of what it was owed. No adjustments at all were provided to the other underpaid groups.
What that really means is that a lot of women who work for this government were cheated out of money they were owed by this government.
As a result, over 15,000 Public Service Alliance members filed grievances requesting implementation of the study results. In the meantime the employer is trying to block the tribunal's investigation of the complaint.
Recently several conciliation board tables that reported back to the President of Treasury Board in recent negotiations prior to last week's strike reported that the current pay equalization payments should be factored into bargaining and that it is important and it is justified for this government to be implementing pay equity during this round of bargaining.
Since 1990 the federal government has twice attempted to block in the federal courts the Canadian Human Rights Commission from investigating the pay equity situation. Chief Commissioner Max Yalden said last week during the dispute with the Public Service Alliance that the federal government is not playing fair with the then striking public service employees.
He found it very strange that the government is still trying to kill a human rights tribunal set up to resolve the pay equity issue while at the same time telling striking employees that the issue should be dealt with by the tribunal, not at the bargaining table. The tribunal hearings began this month.
If the President of Treasury Board were being straight with us in the House that day, if he were serious when he said that pay equity would be implemented, why after these last three months is the Treasury Board still trying to block pay equity?
The question also needs to be addressed of why we as parliamentarians accept that women who are working for the public sector should receive a quarter, a half or a third of what they are owed.
I think it is very important for us to recognize that the Prime Minister in the 1988 election campaign was committed to pay equity. I think it is also important for the Treasury Board to be aware that women in the Public Service Alliance were very clear going back to work this
week that they will not accept less than the pay equity they are entitled to.


Mr. Bill Ketnpling (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I have very limited time to respond to this question, so I will cover it as fast as I can.
In 1984, during the election, we committed ourselves to pay equity in the Public Service. In March 1985 the President of the Treasury Board put in place a joint union-management committee to investigate and recommend how we could implement equal pay for work of equal value. It concluded that there were approximately 73,400 government employees involved.
On June 27,1986 the Employment Equity Act received Royal Assent after debate in this House and in committee.
The remedial action that the government decided to take fell into two phases. In phase one the government allocated $317 million for retroactive payment, an average of $4,800 for each employee involved. Phase two allocates $76 million in salary adjustments from April 1, 1990.
Pay equity affects women, aboriginal people, visible minorities and disabled people. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has been mandated to examine complaints filed in relation to the equalization adjustments. The government remains committed to pay equity which is not affected by the present negotiation, the zero, three and three that is going on with the Treasury Board and PSAC at the present time.
Let me say this again. The government is committed to pay equity and will continue to be committed in the future. Finally, pay equity is not on the negotiating table in the current discussions between PSAC and the Treasury Board.


MONTREAES ECONOMY
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise again a question I asked on September 16, at the very beginning of this new session, about the deplorable economic situation in the Montreal area. I raised that issue earlier, in February and also in June, when we held in this House an important debate on Montreal's economy, which my colleague from Saint-Denis organized and participated in.

On this side of the House, Liberal members from the Province of Quebec, from the Montreal area, are very concerned about what is happening in Montreal, Mr. Speaker.
It is easy for the government to rise every day and say the recession is over. Yet, each and every day, thousands of workers are losing their jobs.
That is a very telling example, especially since the Minister of Finance is saying the recession is over. I am not the one making this allegation, it appeared in the September 11 issue of La Presse, where it read: Housing Starts Dropped by 40 per cent in the Montreal Area. We all know the construction business, especially residential construction, is the motor of our economy, because it immediately provides jobs to workers. How can you say the recession is over when 40 per cent of all housing starts, and I am not talking here about sales, because this government tells us housing sales are up. Of course, we are selling old houses, there is speculation, and so on. But a 40 per cent drop in housing starts in August only is terrible and is not helping Montreal at all.
Here is another article published on September 18: "The East of Montreal is agonizing-10,000 more unemployed than in 1986". However, the government is still boasting that it's all the fault of the Liberals, that it is all the making of the bad Liberals. Look at the numbers:
10,000	more unemployed than in 1986. And we have a Conservative government since 1984. Texaco, 380 jobs lost; BP, 226; Esso, 500; Gulf, 450; Biscuits David, 437.
Here, I am hearing voices, Mr. Speaker, this is the voice of the hon. member for Mercier who was supposed to protect the only refinery left in the East of Montreal, if I remember correctly, in 1985-86. Maybe she should read what she said at the time, instead of shouting in the wilderness. Steinberg, 591; Daoust-Lalonde, 211; Vickers, 380; Kemtek, 250; and the last one, Mr. Speaker, Angus, 900 jobs. This was last week.
You seem to be telling me that my time is nearly up, so I will just read a few more articles: "Job stagnation in Montreal until to 1995". Yes 1995, Mr. Speaker, and we are in 1991. So, where is the economic recovery for Montreal?
Here is another one, dated September 10 in the Journal de Montreal "Nobody cares about Montreal", Mr. Speaker. And finally, last week, and I will conclude on
Adjournment Debate
that, some people in Quebec met to find a solution. Quebec leaders, under the chairmanship of the Conseil du patronat du Quebec, found 48 projects and the only thing they asked the government for, Mr. Speaker, and I will end on that, was to have the dollar at 80 cents, but the government keeps saying that we should let the dollar rise every day.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State of Canada and Minister of Multicul-turalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to answer my friend and colleague on the economic revival of Montreal and I would like to draw the attention of the member for Saint-Leonard on an event that I attended yesterday in Montreal. He forgot to mention the newspaper clippings that said:"Merck Frosst opens a new research centre in Kirkland".
The president of this multinational thanked this government, this minister, who is even from Alberta, for having worked on bill C-22, but not you who, again, jammed this bill with your Liberal senators with the exception, I must admit, of the member from Saint-Denis who was with us.
I was present at this inaugural, Mr. Speaker, and I have never seen anything like that: 4 500 people from research and technology under a tent.
I must admit that it was a large tent. It was a big event.
Mr. Speaker, the prime minister is the minister responsible for Montreal and the research centre and I can tell you also that there were not many Liberals, not even one of them, because it was Bill C-22 and the Speaker remembers it.
So, the President congratulated us, Mr. Speaker, and I can tell you that the largest research center in Canada will now be in Quebec, in the Montreal area. It will not be difficult to find. It will create 300 new quality jobs in Montreal, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to stress the fact that yesterday's ceremony was the concrete result of Bill C-22. We, on this side, strived to make of this bill an extraordinary piece of legislation, whereas the Liberals did everything they could to prevent it from passing, to make Montreal suffer. They were the ones who made the most ridiculous arguments. Mr. Speaker, they went as far as predicting the worst catastrophes for the Canadian pharmaceutical industry and for consumers.

September 24, 1991
Adjournment Debate
Well, the president of Merck Frosst himself emphasized that the new centre was a direct result of the adoption of this bill which encourages businesses to invest in Canada. All that was confirmed by the Quebec minister, Gerald Tremblay, Mr. Speaker. It is unfortunate, because I would have also liked-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is this old latin saying Dura lex, sed lex meaning "the law is strict, but it's the law." So, according to the rules, I must now recognize the hon. member for Edmonton-East.


PETRO-CANADA
Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, and through you to all Canadians, the Mulroney Conservatives have now sold 20 per cent of our national energy company as the Petro-Canada interim report for the six months ending June 30, 1991, put it and I quote: "The sale of shares ends Petro-Canada's status as a Crown corporation". Petro-Canada, serving as a 100 per cent Canadian totally publicly-owned energy company is gone, not for a little while. It is gone forever.
What have we lost? We have lost a vital public policy tool. No future national government will be able to use Petro-Canada to help keep foreign oil companies honest by being the one company, our company, we can reasonably expect would not gouge us at the gas pumps. Petro-Canada can never be used to help keep energy profits in Canada for reinvestment here. Petro-Canada can never be used to help lead us toward a greener energy future by actively promoting conservation and alternative energy sources, and by taking even such modest steps as collecting, recycling and selling used engine oil or marketing ethanol produced from grain, an environmental choice product, nation-wide.
Canadians are also losing a potful of money, billions of dollars. My very rough estimate is that Canadians will lose at least $4 billion on this sale.
I tried to make changes to the Tory privatization bill to guarantee that the sale would at least recover for Canadian taxpayers the $6.8 billion they have invested in
Petro-Canada over the years. That is right, $6.8 billion in 1990 dollars.
Unfortunately, the Conservatives and Liberal members of the committee studying the bill defeated my fiscally responsible amendment, but that is not all. The minister himself admitted that a lot of money that it raised from the sale, including the approximately $520 million from the sale of the first 20 per cent of the shares, will never be returned to the taxpayers. It will be ploughed right back into the company.
I am not joking. The buyers of Petro-Canada will have your cake and will be eating it too. If you sold your house and then gave the money back to the people who bought it, your kids would have you put away. Any psychiatrist in the land would back them up because it is lunacy.
There are two more layers of bitter frosting on this particular nut cake, Mr. Speaker. First, Canadian taxpayers will be shelling out millions of dollars to investment dealers to facilitate this legalized theft of public money. Second, the money that the company will get from the first sale, that $520 million, will make it financially possible for Petro-Canada to assist in the government scheme to ship Canadian oil from the Hibernia field straight past Canadian refineries, located in regions of double digit unemployment, to United States refineries. The lunacy never ends.
I will tell you this, Mr. Speaker. If after it is all finally gone and the last government share is sold, the people of Canada have recouped more than $2.5 billion in 1990 dollars, I will eat the Hansard of the entire Bill C-84 debate including the committee transcripts.
Let me conclude then by repeating the question I asked the minister on June 19, 1991. It is this: " What is the government's best estimate of how much money will be returned to the Canadian treasury once from the sale of Petro-Canada shares once those Petro-Canada shares are completely sold off, the government's best estimate, even a ballpark figure."


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the remarks of my hon. friend from Edmonton East.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Petro-Canada Public Participation Act which received Royal Assent on February 1, 1991, permits the government to sell of its shareholding in Petro-Canada and allows the company to issue and sell treasury shares. This gives Petro-Canada the financial flexibility it needs to fully participate in the development of Canada's significant reserves alongside its private sector counterparts.
Not only does this government hold the view that state ownership and state control are not necessary in the Canadian oil and gas industry, but we also believe that it is in the public interest for Petro-Canada to raise the new equity it needs directly from investors rather than continuing to rely on the Canadian taxpayer. In short, the privatization of Petro-Canada is a matter of simple common sense and sound economic management.
I am happy to report that Petro-Canada has completed the first crucial step in moving into private sector hands. On July 3, Petro-Canada's initial public offering of treasury shares closed, netting the company over $520 million. As promised, Petro-Canada has used these proceeds to pay off some of its debt, thereby improving the company's financial position. As evidence of the success of this offering, over 100,000 Canadians purchased shares, including many small investors. Petro-Canada's employees were also eager to participate directly in the company's future, as over 80 per cent bought shares through the employee share purchase plan.
While the government continues to hold a substantial majority of the outstanding common shares, it has promised not to interfere in the operations of the company.
The government is also committed to selling all of its shares in Petro-Canada, subject to market conditions and other relevant factors. As the minister explained to the hon. member for Edmonton East last June, it is premature to speculate on the amount the government can expect to receive from the sale of thee shares.
Given the size of Petro-Canada, it is conceivable that it will take a number of years for the government to significantly reduce its holdings in the company. The value that we receive for our shares when we go to market will depend on a number of factors, including the outlook for the oil and gas industry, Petro-Canada's
Adjournment Debate
financial and operational performance and the prospects for growth, competitive forces and the over all market condition.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Order please. Your time is over.
I apologize. There are no questions of privilege on adjournment motions.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mrs. Christine Stewart (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, last week, and previously in May and June of this year, I raised questions in this House on an issue of great concern to the Canadian public.
The issue I raised had to do with the quick entry of Mr. Al-Mashat and his family into this country as landed immigrants. Mr. Al-Mashat was the previous Iraqi ambassador to the United States.
There were really two issues at stake at the time this issue was before the House in the spring of this year. There was the issue of how it was possible for this gentleman and his family to gain such quick entry into this country ahead of a long list of very eligible people. That was one issue.
The second issue which arose was the way that our government ministers handled this particular issue. Instead of taking responsibility for the mistaken quick entry of this gentleman and his family into this country, our ministers in this House blamed their bureaucracy for the quick entry of Mr. Al-Mashat. They not only blamed their bureaucracy, but they named particular members of the bureaucracy who were to blame.
In absolving themselves of responsibility for the quick admission of the Al-Mashats into this country, the government very selectively quoted from the McGrath report, quoting verbiage from that report which would support their statement that they were not responsible, leaving out other items whereby it was clear that the ministers in this case were ultimately responsible for the quick entry of this family into Canada.
To quote from that report, specifically it said: "Where ministers do involve themselves directly in administration, it follows that they will be accountable for their specific decisions. Moreover, they will continue to be held accountable in Parliament by traditional means."

September 24, 1991
Adjournment Debate
What happened was that our former Secretary of State for External Affairs himself put into place the procedures that were to be followed by his own bureaucracy. From the information our investigating parliamentary committee received, those procedures were followed to the point.
Despite the fact that officials of the department followed all the procedures that were outlined, the minister absolved himself of responsibility and blamed those same bureaucrats for the quick entry of the Al-Mashats into this country.
It is interesting, I am sure, to the Canadian public, what happens as a consequence of being blamed for misprocedure in this House. The Under-Secretary of State has received a position as Ambassador to Italy and his associate is Ambassador to Brussels.
There was an investigation looking into a lost secret memo which was a key as to whether or not in fact, the minister was informed of the desire of the Al-Mashats to come into this country. That secret memo was lost.
The present Secretary of State for External Affairs has promised to do an investigation to search for this secret memo. In answer to my question last week, she indicated that this memo has still not been found. I asked those officials who were carrying out the investigation of the department to find the secret memo and make their report to the minister public. Since the hearing into this whole affair was a public issue and there is a strong sense in the public that there was a cover up, I think it is important that the government make this report public as well.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is important to keep the record straight on this matter. The question put before the House tonight had to do with a question the member asked last week with regard to the missing memo.
I should point out that nine-tenths of the remarks she made tonight had nothing to do with the matter of the memo that was missing and was part of her question. It was a polemic about the case before.
The hon. member also neglected to point out that while she was upset with the quick entry of Al-Mashat, so was every other member of this House, including
every government member and cabinet member. They were equally upset about that. She also neglected to mention that prior to Al-Mashat's entry, the two ministers in question had turned down the quick entry of another Iraqi diplomat which should have given clear signal that the ministers would not have, had they known, admitted Mr. Al-Mashat.
The member continues to talk about the secret memo. It may be that it was classified secret, but it was no secret. It was widely distributed to the members of the committee. The member has one. She has a copy of this and yet she continues to talk about the secret memo leading the Canadian public to believe that nobody in this House or anywhere else knows what the contents of that memo are. She knows very well what is in that memo and yet she continues to call it that.
There was an investigation conducted, as the minister promised, in the days of June 11 to 26 of 1991, just a few months ago. The security division of external affairs did conduct that investigation. It interrogated all the members of external affairs who could have had contact with that memo and did not find the memo. It discussed the matter with the RCMP, but since there was no criminality suggested in the action, the RCMP said that there should not be an investigation by that force and the matter up to this point, therefore, has been dropped.


FISHERIES
Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the fishing disaster and the disastrous year it has been in Newfoundland in the total fishing industry.
Since May 9 I have been pursuing this with my colleagues on this side of the House. Letter after letter to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and response after response, here we are almost the end of September and we still have not addressed the problem.
Since this House opened there has been a question or a discussion every single day in this House, on two occasions by the Leader of the Opposition. I asked a question of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on September 17. I again raised the issue as a statement today. Yesterday, on September 23, and today, the member from Labrador raised the tremendous concern he had about the situation in Labrador, which is a total disaster. There have been no fish up there at all.
September 24, 1991

Mr. Speaker, you know what my question is going to be and I can tell you what the response is going to be from the hon. parliamentary secretary. The response from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is: "Yes, I am aware of what is going on, but we are not ready yet." The people in Newfoundland are ready and the people in my riding are ready.
Let me tell you how ready they are. I represent three Bays: Bonavista Bay, Trinity Bay and Conception Bay. Let me say something about Bonavista Bay. One area trapped, last year, 300,000 pounds, this year 14,000 pounds. That is a tremendous reduction in the same bay. Another area needs a response to assist 150 fishermen and 500 plant workers in Bonavista Bay. Let me talk about Trinity Bay.
In one area in Trinity Bay, as I stand and speak, there are 31 people who have not qualified for unemployment insurance. This is a report from the union.
I have another report here. This concerns Conception Bay, and this is from the CEC office which works directly with the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The number of employees in one area serviced by a CEC office, in a fish plant area, is 3,200.
The number of those who had any weeks at all as of the end of August is 1,600 and only 100 had a total of 10 weeks, that will qualify for unemployment insurance.
What is happening is that we are raising the concerns of our riding, and I am sure people are sympathetic to it but what I am getting is the response from the government. I am not paid to come up here and take back to my riding the response that the government has. I am paid to come up here and to give the position of the people from my riding, who are in dire situations.
I have three cases in which people cannot afford to send their kids to school because they have not got any money, and they have not got any clothes for the children and they do not have money to put food on the table.
I cannot impress upon this House the urgency of this situation. I know the hon. member for Labrador. He is a very moderate man, and he was angry today. He said: "If you do not give it to me now, don't bother." I am sure he did not really mean that but that is the sense of urgency that we are trying to get into this House and into this government.
Adjournment Debate
The hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, whom I believe and hope understands the situation, has to pressure his cabinet colleagues to come up with an aid package now. He said the fishing industry is not finished yet. It is not over.
It is finished for a lot of people and it is going to be finished for a lot of others, even as we stand and speak.
If you cannot come up with a total package, because he claims the fishing industry is not over, come up with a partial package. Aid those who need it now.
These are extraordinary times, and they cannot have a standard solution. They need to have an extraordinary solution. I am asking the minister and his parliamentary secretary to give me a good answer to that and to tell me there is an aid package coming out tomorrow morning.


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, I can assure him and the House that officials of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Employment and Immigration Canada are closely monitoring the situation. They are working on the very problem that he has identified so eloquently here this afternoon.
I can tell the hon. member also that during a recent visit last week the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans met with the premier of Newfoundland, Mr. Wells, and also with Mr. Cashin, President of the Fishermen's Union.
We do realize that many fishermen and plant workers are facing troubling times because they have been able to catch very few fish this season. The severe ice conditions which persisted along the Labrador coast have caused a failure of fish in that area. The conditions along the northeast coast of Newfoundland were somewhat better, but the cold water temperatures resulted in poor capelin and cod fisheries.
For the many industry participants, this is the worst fishing season in recent memory. Inshore ground fishermen and plant workers who rely on the success of this fishery for employment have had their incomes seriously reduced. A comprehensive program of assistance is being developed in co-operation with the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

September 24, 1991
Adjournment Debate
Officials are assessing the options available to provide assistance to those affected by the unusually poor fishing season.
I want to allay the fears of the hon. member and assure him that this government is acting in the interests of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador who depend on the fishery. In May the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced a special ice compensation program which was able to provide assistance to those who were prevented from beginning the normal fishing season due to severe ice conditions.
The government's $18 million assistance package helped fishermen get through the period when ice problems delayed the opening of the fishery and the government will act again to ensure that hardship is averted throughout the winter by providing a package to assist the fishermen and the plant workers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The motion to adjourn the House now is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 7.18 p.m.