1991-12-02

Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South) moved: that Bill C-237, an act to amend the Interest Act (calculation of credit card interest), be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee E.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is a bill to amend the Interest Act. The calculation of interest and how it is to be calculated is a matter of federal jurisdiction which we have not dealt with sufficiently. The bill deals with the calculation and the terms of calculation of interest rates on credit cards. It does not limit the interest rate or control interest rates, it merely determines how interest is to be calculated and it does that for the following reasons.
First, it is a bill designed to make the calculation of interest possible and provable. Second, it is a bill to standardize the calculation of interest so that consumers can compare the interest rates they are charged on credit cards. Third, it is a bill designed to prevent unconscionable double dipping by some credit card companies charging interest on money for which they have already received a payment or a fee for lending in the first place.
We are all in love today with our plastic. There is not a Canadian who does not go around with plastic in all cases. We have on average something like two and a half credit cards per individual. We all love our plastic.
Before plastic it was necessary for us to pay our bills in cash. If you did not have the cash you could not pay or
you paid your bills with a cheque. If the merchant would not take your cheque then you could not buy. If you had a good arrangement with your merchant he might give you credit but you would pay the merchant off at the end of the month or whenever.
The incidence of plastic now makes it possible for people to buy goods and services anywhere in the world where your plastic is good.
As an aside I suppose we would all be better off in some senses if we did not have plastic because we would not run up some of the debts we run up but our world moves because we are able to move money quickly from one person to another. The plastic makes that possible.
Those who issue credit cards get their emolument or get paid for their service in three fashions. First they charge what is called a merchant fee. A merchant fee is really a method whereby the merchant factors his account receivable, because he has not been paid in cash, to a bank or a credit card company. The bank or credit card company pays him for the receivable. The bank or credit card company then bills its customer who is the holder of the card for the good or service at the time of payment. The bank takes a discount on the amount of the cost of the good as a merchant fee.
If you buy something for $100 and the merchant fee is $3 the merchant gets $97. The bank or credit card company collects when it collects its fee of $100 at the appropriate time and therefore makes $3 for supplying the credit or looking after the credit.
The second method of payment or emolument to the credit card company is a user fee. Those fees vary all over the place. Some credit card companies charge an annual fee. American Express for example charges $75 on their green card. Some companies charge a monthly fee. Some charge $1 a month, $12 a year or 50 cents a transaction. These are user fees and they vary all over the place. It depends on the merchandising of the card and how the company wants to handle it.

Private Members' Business
All companies charge interest in one form or another and calculate it in a different way on the amount outstanding on their cards. Some companies like the Bank of Montreal on its MasterCard do not charge any user fees. It charges merchant fees and interest on the card.
The American Express or Amex green card charges a very substantial up front user fee and a merchant fee but only charges interest when the account is in default and then it collects interest on the money and usually at the same time terminates the credit because it takes the position on the green card part of its business that it is not in the business of lending money. It is in the business of facilitating purchases. Interest is on default only. On default the card becomes a cancelled card. They sue to collect their money and at that point demand interest.
I wish to explain this bill and how it will work. At the present time interest is charged by people in a different and peculiar fashion. To understand interest and how it is charged one must understand merchant fees and why they occur.
Merchant fees can be anywhere between 1.5 per cent and 5 per cent of the sale price, depending on the contract the merchant has with the person who allows him to use the card. It can be the bank or whoever.
Say for example I deal with a merchant who is a jeweller and I decide to buy a $100 bauble for my wife. Suppose the merchant has a fee of 3 per cent. I sign my Visa card and agree to pay $100 for the bauble. I take the bauble and the merchant takes my Visa slip and he immediately deposits it in his bank account. The bank credits him not with $100 but $97. He has $97 immediately in his bank account. He does not have to worry about my credit. He does not have to worry about a cheque that might bounce. He is able to make a sale because I did not have $100 in my pocket. I could not have bought the bauble so he has made a sale that otherwise he would not have made.
The merchant is happy because he has $97 in cash and I suppose he has calculated the cost of supplying that credit in the purchase price of the bauble.
When the bank collects it obviously collects the $100. The merchant fee profit on the transaction to the bank is $3.1 suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that that merchant fee
represents interest on the advance of money to the merchant. That is what it is. It is a pre-calculated interest charge for the use of credit and the merchant has paid for that credit because the credit has been to his benefit.
Suppose I made that purchase from the jeweller on November 15. At that time the merchant got his $97 and the bank paid out $97. If it was a Visa account that I have they may bill everything up to the end of November. On December 2 they will send out a bill to me dated December 2 which says that if I pay by December 211 can just pay $100 and that will be the end of it.
In most cases that is the end of it. At least half of the people who buy on credit cards pay their cards off within the credit period. In this particular example the credit period runs to December 21.1 have that period of time to pay the bill. If I pay it on time that is all there is to it.
Suppose I do not have $100. I only have $50 and I pay $50 on the account which leaves $50 still outstanding. One would think in decency that the bank has received $3 interest on the money to December 21 and and if they get $50 in that period then they would only charge interest on that $50 from December 21 to the next payment date. That is what you would think would be decent. That would be the ordinary calculation of interest on what ordinarily ought to happen.
But oh, no, they play a different game.
This is the fault that must be corrected. This is what this bill is about. Instead of treating $50 as something they have, they proceed to say that they have not been paid in full, and therefore are entitled to charge interest on $100.
Even though they have interest on $100, they charge interest on $100 at their rate, we will say at 18 per cent per annum, not from December 21, not from December 2, but from November 15. Interest on $100 from November 15 until December 21 works out to about $1.80. Right off the bat, they add $1.80 to the account and then they get $50 and are still owed $50.
They say it is plus $1.80 for interest, but they want even more than that because when they send their bill out on January 2, they calculate interest on $50 from December 21 until January 21 and that comes to another 75 cents or 76 cents or so. On January 2, they send a bill for $52.86, giving them another calculation of interest.
December 2, 1991

The bill is designed to stop that fault. The bill says: "Interest on a credit card account shall be calculated monthly as it accrues and where unpaid when due, such interest shall be compounded monthly from the date that payment was due". In this case, payment is due on December 21 and interest should be calculated from the date payment is due.
When they send out their bill on January 2, they should send out a bill for interest from December 21 to January 21 representing a cost of approximately 76 cents or a bill for $50.76. That is really the compensation they are entitled to on the amount of that advance.
What has been happening, and happening with increasing frequency, is that card companies have been doubly dipping the consumer. First of all, they dip the consumer, indirectly I admit, when they get a merchant fee to cover the cost of carrying the credit to the end of the credit period.
Then they come back if they are not paid in full and want interest all over again on the same money. This bill is designed to prevent that happening. It is designed to make it possible for people to calculate the interest outstanding.
Right now, while my example only had me buying one article in the month, I might have bought a series of articles on November 2, 14, 15, 27 and so on. In each case, the bank would have calculated back to the date of purchase. I could not conceivably determine the amount of that bank calculation.
When the bill arrives with interest, I just have to assume that it is correct under the current system. Under the system proposed in this bill, I will know when I pay $50 on account, what is the balance owing on my account. I will be able, with straight long form arithmetic if necessary, to calculate the interest that should be due when my bill comes again to be paid in January, to be paid by January 21.
For the first time consumers, if this bill should pass, will have the opportunity to determine what interest they are paying for the advance made on their plastic by the issuer of the plastic card.
I commend this bill to the House. I think this matter has to be dealt with. Institutions have tried to avoid
Private Members' Business
dealing with it. I suspect today that the government in its usual fashion will put up one speaker after another to say that it somehow interferes with business.
Well, it is about time we allowed business to operate sensibly and fairly. It is about time that the calculation of interest was controlled in the same manner for everyone and this bill attempts to do that.


Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth):: Mr. Speaker, it is good to see you so chipper so early in the morning at the beginning of a week. You are setting the tone for the entire week and it is good to see that.
I rise today to support Bill C-237 put forward by my hon. colleague. He has put a lot of work into this bill. Over the last few months I have had to read-and I have to say it has not been painful-a lot of his past press releases as well as testimony in committee when he was chair of the finance committee. The committee brought in a report, I believe it was in 1988, dealing with credit cards generally. In 1989 the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs revisited this entire issue. Since the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs Committee is now dealing with the issue again, this bill is a topical issue.
At the outset I want to indicate to the hon. member that the issues he raises are serious and affect almost every single consumer in Canada. A lot of times private members' bills put forward in this place have a very limited application and there are not a lot of people out there who are affected. I dare say there is probably not a member of Parliament and there are very few adults in Canada that do not have credit cards. The startling statistics are that there are about 27 million bank cards out there and only about 18 million adults in Canada. In addition to that, there is probably another 30 or 40 million department store cards.
If you really want to look at a bill that has broad implications for every consumer in Canada, this certainly is one of them. The member also brings with him a tremendous degree of credibility when he deals with financial issues. He is not one of these Johnny-come-latelys to the vast and dark tunnel of financial institutions. He has been dealing with them in this and previous Parliaments for a long time. I want to commend him for his perseverance at this point in his career, in continuing to dog this particular issue because he knows that fundamental change is needed.

December 2, 1991
Private Members' Business
I want to underline this point. The hon. member indicated that the current way credit card issuers calculate interest is pretty bizarre. It is fine to say that consumers should understand what is the effective rate of interest being charged. I will bet you that if you pulled aside any dozen individuals in this Chamber and asked them how the credit card companies calculate interest, unless they have been involved either in the finance committee deliberations of 1988 or involved in the consumer and corporate affairs committee deliberations in 1989, they would not know. They would not have any idea. It is almost like life insurance policies. How many people out there actually know what all the small print means on their life insurance policies? I do not think even most life insurance salesmen know.
It is the same thing when you come to credit card interest rates. My hon. colleague is quite correct. What happens is clear. The credit card issuer states that there will be a a grace period and if the balance is paid off during that grace period there will be no interest charged. That is basically it. We heard from the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal just two weeks ago that one-half of all the banks cards, Visa, MasterCards in circulation have an average unpaid balance of an of $1,000 every month. So we are not dealing with a little bit of money, we are dealing with about 15 million cards with an average balance of $1,000 every month.
I want to read a letter that I just received in my office on November 27 addressed to the Hon. Pierre Blais. I am not going to indicate the author of this letter because it deals with some financial information that he may not wish to have disclosed.
I want to read this letter because it certainly puts bank interest charges in perspective. It says that his October 1991 Visa account had an outstanding charge of $2,101.72. It was his intention to pay off his account in full, as he always did. He was a good consumer who paid his balance off every month. Isn't he lucky that he has the money to do that. However, through an error, he issued a cheque for $2,001.72 and he enclosed a copy of the cheque. That left a carryover amount of $100.
He thought he had paid the $2,101.72 off, but he left a balance of $100 in the way he wrote the cheque. He is one of those guys who are lucky enough to have the money to pay off that bloody card at the end of every month.
On his November 1991 account, of which I have a copy, he now finds an interest charge of $50.57 on a carryover amount of $100. He has paid over 50 per cent interest on his balance. You do not get interest relief at all unless you pay every cent off, every penny of the money that you have charged. If you do not pay it all off within the grace period you are going to get nailed for the interest on money that you have already paid off. The full amount. Nothing could more clearly illustrate the point that my hon. colleague has made.
In 1988 my hon. colleague put forward Bill C-238. The bill sought to do the same thing this one is doing. It is trying to put some sanity into the marketplace when dealing with financial institutions, and regarding large credit card issuers, it is trying to standardize the method of interest calculation so that consumers will be able to know. It is pretty difficult. It is like going into a dark corner where there are 12 hissing snakes and trying to pick out the one that is not poisonous. It is the same thing right now with consumers who are trying to deal with the different rates of interest calculated by various card issuers.
My colleague has put forward a bill to which the government could easily assent. The financial institutions may not like it, but they usually do not like it when they have regulations that in effect make them more accountable, not just to Parliament but to the consumers out there.
As one of my colleagues said a little earlier, credit cards derive their money from three different areas: the transaction fee they charge the retailer, the interest rates and user fees.
If anybody out there is about to start crying in their cups for the major credit card issuers in this country, I just want to let them all know that the consumer and corporate affairs committee, in some of its deliberations a few weeks ago, was questioning two of the major banks in Canada. We wanted to find out why the banks had to keep primary interest rates a full 12 percentage points above the treasury bill rate. What the banks had indicated is that it was because of their loan losses. The country is in a recession, 40,000 consumers have gone bankrupt across the country in the last 10 months, a horrendous figures, and it was because of loan losses on Visa and MasterCard accounts.
December 2, 1991

I was very particular and I said: "Does that mean you are losing money?" They said: "No, it is just that our losses are high". I said: "So what you are telling me is that on one of the three components where you make your money, you have to charge 12 per cent more because you have not made enough money?" Is that what you are trying to tell us?' They did not nod yes, but by their silence and by their stoic look, the answer had to be yes, it could not be anything else but yes.
When the banks come out, as they would if this bill were adopted, and say this is unfair and unduly restricts the marketplace and there should be an allowance through which we can deal with these complex financial calculations outside of the realm of Parliament and regulation, I just want to indicate that we have just gone through one of the worst recessions on record, a very difficult recession. The Royal Bank is a very good bank and I do not get any letters from Royal Bank managers. It is a very good financial institution. It serves its shareholders well. It makes a lot of money for them and banks are in the business of making money. The Royal Bank last year made about $923 million in net income. The Royal Bank this year is probably going to make either a little below that or, if the next month is better, it may even hit a billion dollars. That is a lot of money.
The Bank of Montreal, a very aggressive bank, has gone out there, dropped rates and it is a very competitive institution. I credit the management of that institution for shaking up all of our financial institutions in Canada by its aggressive behaviour. The Bank of Montreal, in the middle of a recession, has posted record profits. When we start dealing with-


An hon. member:: What have they all paid in taxes?


Ronald MacDonald: My hon. colleague from Broadview-Greenwood asks what they have paid in taxes.


An hon. member:: On whose backs?


Ronald MacDonald: On whose backs have they done it.
If we look at this bill in perspective, it seeks to give the consumer some relief. It puts into the marketplace a
Private Members' Business
regime which is standardized so that the consumer knows once and for all exactly how his interest is going to be calculated.
It also says to the large financial institutions that issue these cards that we are going to keep an eye on them. We do not want to make them unprofitable, but we do not want to leave them out there so highly unregulated that the consumer is going to suffer.
We in the Liberal Party believe this is the type of measure that will look after both interests and you can look after both interests.
Canada needs strong financial institutions. As well, we need strong consumer protection from undue gouging and from some practices some might consider to be a bit of collusion.
In conclusion, I want to commend my hon. colleague. He has tremendous tenacity. He is like a dog with a bone and he is not going to let this one go. I want to let him know that some on this side of the House treat his perseverance with a great deal of respect. We on this side of the House think that this bill goes a very significant way in ensuring that in the complex area of financial institutions, the setting of credit card interest rates through all three of the areas we talked about before are open to more public scrutiny and are more accountable to those 22 million credit card holders across Canada.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I guess the hon. member for Don Valley is going to hit a home run today. This close to Christmas perhaps he merits it because I too would like to speak on his bill in support of it.
As a consumer advocate for close to 23 years I too have seen consumers gouged by excessive credit card rates and unfair credit card practices. When we look at the establishment of interest rates, it is no wonder that we, the members of the consumer affairs committee, along with my colleague from Cape Breton, would like to see a serious approach taken to bringing down these interest rates. Whether it is a floating cap or other measures, there have to be some serious measures taken right now in order to prevent consumers in this country from getting gouged.

Private Members' Business
When we are talking about gouging through credit card interest rates as well as practices, you have to look at the two differently. With respect to interest rates, my party and other parties I think have been in favour of having a floating cap. This is not spoken to in the hon. member's bill. It is unfortunate because the consumers affairs committee twice, in 1989 and prior, recommended that there be a floating cap. That was an all party committee, Conservatives, Liberals and NDP. It was just common sense, gros bon sens.
I am sure the hon. member probably agrees with the government. It did not wish to see a floating cap on interest rates. That is unfortunate because it is a very serious problem, I think even more serious than this double dipping problem relating to the approach it takes to calculating the interest rate.
If we take a look at the interest rate structure right now, the card companies are going to say: "We need every opportunity in order to cut down on these fraudulent claims or on these people who are delinquent in paying".
I am going to stop for a minute because of the noise from the other side. It is very difficult for me to even hear what I am saying.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. If you wish to carry on a conversation, would you carry it on behind the curtain. It is very difficult to hear the hon. member.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, it is especially because credit card issuers explain high interest rates by the large number of unpaid accounts and the many false claims. But this is not the consumers' problem-it is the credit card issuers'. They choose their card holders in a rather strange way. People who were $250,000 in debt and went bankrupt were solicited to become card holders the next day. They are approached by credit card issuers like the banks and, in one specific case, American Express, as reported by journalist Pierre Berton. So these people are always being solicited, whether they were bankrupt or not. Of course, this may be a way to get more customers, but it forces people like you and me and many other Canadians who pay every month to pay more on account of those who do not pay. I find that is neither right nor fair.
The interest rates are unacceptable. As my hon. colleague said, they vary from 19 to 20 per cent in some cases, with the banks, to 25 per cent for department stores and other companies and even 30 per cent for American Express. Yes, 30 per cent. We should find out whether the companies are really doing so badly that a bill like the one presented by the hon. member could bankrupt them. Would they suffer large losses as a result? I do not believe so. I simply believe that it would be fair to require these companies to act responsibly towards their customers by setting acceptable interest rates. A difference of 12 points between the bank rate and the current interest rate is really enormous. If it were cut in half, to 4, 4.5 or 5 per cent, it would at least mean that the customer could obtain justice. I call that simple justice.
It is true that the credit card issuers today make huge profits except, perhaps, interestingly enough, American Express with the Optima card, which was a big fiasco. In the United States, some people like hotel and restaurant owners are really unhappy with the Optima Card. American Express probably needs a 30 per cent interest rate today because it lost so much in the past. But I find rates of 25 per cent and 20 per cent for the banks, department stores and other companies really unacceptable, especially in view of the profits of financial institutions, particularly banks, recently.
So as for interest rates, I find that my hon. colleague should show some courage, independence and even tenacity and really demand that interest rates be capped at a certain level and that banks and other companies be required to respect that ceiling.
When I spoke with the bank representatives who appeared before the Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, the representatives of the Royal Bank and the Bank of Montreal said, or rather admitted, because they did not want to say so at first, that in the past, in the 1960s, interest rates were capped, although perhaps the hon. member for Don Valley may not have been aware of that. And I asked the bank representatives whether they had any particular difficulty with the interest rate ceiling. They told me that they did not, as you can check. It was not a problem then. Maybe today, 30 years later, there might be a problem, I don't know. But in the past, when interest rates were capped, they did not have that problem.
December 2, 1991

So I would be inclined to think that the banks and other institutions would not have very great problems if interest rates were capped.
A second point that I would like to raise, besides the need for a limit on interest rates, is the present method used to calculate interest on the balance due, as my hon. colleague just mentioned. Unfortunately, the current method is unfair and I think that the hon. member's bill is excellent in its approach to these issues in that credit card holders should pay interest on the balance due and not on the initial amount. I do not know whether the hon. member is aware of it; he talks about "double dipping". I can tell him about "triple dipping".
I personally met a restaurateur who accepts the American Express card. He told me that American Express does not pay restaurateurs immediately-a well-established procedure. My hon. colleague is mistaken if he thinks that everyone is compensated or paid right away when someone pays with a credit card. It can sometimes take 10 days, sometimes 21 days.
To conclude, I would like to mention that restaurateurs who accept the American Express card asked their customers to leave those cards at home. They did not exactly boycott them, but they would prefer their customers not to use them. So there is a serious problem of triple dipping.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I support the position taken by my hon. colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I entirely agree with his careful analysis of the matter before the House today-the interest rates charged by issuers of credit cards on balances due-and with his approach to dealing with this matter.
I am also aware of the concerns of the hon. member who introduced this private member's bill, and I fully support his goal, which is to help consumers who take advantage of the credit terms available to credit card users.
However, after considerable reflection, I must conclude that the proposal before us today is not very sensible and should not be adopted, in the circumstances.
Private Members' Business
I do not think we should make a decision without first giving full consideration to the needs of consumers and the consequences of measures that might be adopted by this House. We should pursue the ongoing process of regulatory reform launched by this government and not let ourselves be sidetracked by adopting special measures. The goal of our reforms is to ensure the stability of the financial sector and increase competition among the players in this industry, always in the interests of the consumer.
Both goals are necessary. If we undermine the stability of the financial sector, all sectors of our economy will suffer and automatically the consumer will be the loser.
Conversely, it is not in our interests to protect our financial institutions by reducing competition. Such a policy, were the government so rash as to implement it, would not only penalize the consumer but also hurt and weaken the competitive position of our financial industry-an industry that today is among the most advanced and most competitive in the world.
After these generalities about regulatory reform in the financial sector I would like to go on to the subject of credit card interest rates. There are several points I would like to make.
First of all, credit card interest rates and rates charged for the various types of credit available today are set by the market, which allows consumers to shop around for the best rate.
I may also point out that consumers with unpaid balances on their credit cards are usually in the higher income bracket and have a level of education that is higher than average. I would expect these people to have access to other, less costly forms of credit, such as a line of credit or a consumer loan, but we can only speculate on their reasons for deciding to use a more expensive form of credit.
One reason may be that they are not familiar with the various types of credits available. It is the role of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to make them aware of those possibilities. Another reason might be that some people prefer to make full use of the credit offered by these cards because it is so practical. In the final instance, it is up to every individual to weigh the pros and cons of this commodity.

December 2, 1991
Private Members' Business
Second, I would like to say a few words about the cost of the credit extended by the issuers of credit cards. Of the three components of the cost of credit, only one, the cost of borrowing money, has gone down in recent months. If I may digress slightly, I would like to remind the House that it played an important role, together with the present government and the Bank of Canada, in fighting inflation so that this drop in interest rates could occur. I think the hon. member who tabled the bill will agree.
The other components of credit costs-administration costs for credit card services and the cost of establishing reserves to cover bad debts-do not necessarily go down when interest rates go down. Although its purpose is not to cap interest rates, the bill before us this morning proposes to legislate the way interest is calculated on unpaid credit card balances. Consequently, it should be assessed according to the same criteria as any other rate setting measure.
Well intentioned though this measure may be, it asks Parliament to take unilateral action. So far, the various parties concerned by this matter have not been able to agree. I would therefore ask hon. members to analyse this question and discuss it at length before taking such concrete action.
In concluding, I believe that the best way to give consumers a chance to get the cheapest type of credit possible is to let the market decide. The financial sector legislation tabled by the government will expand the range of options offered to consumers. Thanks to such measures, which are the result of well prepared consultations and discussions with the various parties in our financial sectors, we will be better able to respond to the whole range of consumer needs.
I must therefore vote against this bill, and I recommend that we look for other ways to ensure that the financial sector's operations are sound and also fair to the consumer. Consequently I would also ask hon. members to vote against this proposal.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have just listened to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance because, quite frankly, I think that the government had a rare
chance to do something here today that, contrary to what he would suggest, will not in any way, shape, or form upset the fiscal framework of the financial institutions in this country.
What the member for Mississauga South is doing in presenting this private member's bill is pleading for fairness and is pleading on behalf of all of the consumers in Canada. We know there are close to 50 million credit cards in circulation right now.
In an economy that is as depressed as our economy is at this moment in time and when our financial institutions are showing record breaking profit margins, it would seem to me that it would not only spur on some of the activity that we need so badly, but it would be a concrete action that this government could support. It would be an action that it really does believe in some kind of fairness in the economic system.
I can only say to the member, because it looks like the government is going to talk out this private member's bill, regretfully, as another member from a downtown Toronto market like the member for Mississauga South, we on this side are totally behind your bill. Maybe, in the not too distant future, the government will finally see the light on amending this legislation.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the hon. member for Mississauga South on the the bill he has put before the House this morning, Bill C-237.
It is a bill which seeks to provide fairness to people using credit cards. The instance that comes to mind is a constituent who actually is a solicitor in my riding who acts on behalf of one of the chartered banks. He describes a couple of months ago when his bill for his credit card purchases over the month was something like $1,700.
He could not make out one of the charges, who it was from. It was charged to a numbered company. It was not the corporate name. He inquired. He paid the rest of the bill. I believe it was something like $1,650, but he did not pay the charge of $50. It turned out to be a restaurant charge, but instead of the name of the restaurant, it was a numbered company.

December 2, 1991

He sent in the bill for $1,650. He did not pay for the one charge of $50, and lo and behold the next month, he was charged interest on the entire $1,700 for the month. Needless to say, he was absolutely furious.
I do not know how the parliamentary secretary can stand up in the House today and make statements like: "You should not penalize the consumer". Surely the existing credit card interest rate law is penalizing the consumer. The banks' interest rates are too high anyway, but surely they should not be charging interest for payments that have been made as an extraordinary penalty.
The parliamentary secretary says that we should analyse the issue and then choose. The House has analysed the issue here this morning and has chosen to go with the member for Mississauga South.
The parliamentary secretary says that we should debate the issue. We have debated the issue. The parliamentary secretary really lost the debate. He did not put up good arguments.
I would hope that at some time, whether it is today or very near in the future, by unanimous consent and realistic thinking by the Minister of Finance and the parliamentary secretary, this bill could be brought back by unanimous consent and passed. It is the only fair way to treat consumers of this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time allotted for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.

Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-20, an act to amend certain statutes to implement the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 1991, as
Government Orders
reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance.
Hon. John McDermid (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that the bill be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Mr. Langdon Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to place before the House for consideration amendments which I prepared and which were presented slightly too late on Friday to meet the two o'clock deadline.
I understand there have been some discussions about this. I hope it will be possible for the House to give its unanimous consent so that we can talk about some of the disparate elements within this piece of legislation.


Mr. Cooper:: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that there have been these discussions. There is only one thing I would want very clear. As the hon. member knows, there have been various discussions among the party leaders regarding the calendar between now and Christmas. We would just want an assurance that by proceeding with these amendments we would not end up in a situation that would in any way affect that calendar.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I gather that the Chair has not had a chance to rule on the technical admissibility, never mind the timing, of those amendments. As I understand them they would all probably be ruled out of order.
I would suggest, if we do grant this, that we get a commitment to discuss them all at once and not each amendment separately. I understand there is a large number. In fact what most of the amendments do is wipe out the bill so I think they would be ruled out of order.
I would ask that they be considered all at once.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I would like to get unanimous consent first. Is there unanimous consent to allow the motions?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: These six motions are to delete clauses in the bill. There are six motions in amendment to Bill C-20, an act to amend certain statutes to implement the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 1991, at report stage.

December 2, 1991
Government Orders
Motions Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 in the name of the hon. member for Essex-Windsor will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 1 will apply to Motion No. 2.
Motion No. 3 will be voted on separately and a vote on Motion No. 4 will apply to Motions Nos. 5 and 6.


MEASURE TO ENACT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor) moved:: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 2.
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 7.
Motion No. 4
That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 8.
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 9.
Motion No. 6
That Bill C-20 be amended by deleting Clause 20.
He said: Mr. Speaker, what we have in front of us is the heart of the government cutbacks, commitments and expenditures which formed part of the budget put before this House back in the late winter. We have discussed this bill in committee and many groups came to testify before us. We are talking about a large number of groups, some of which appeared, some of which submitted briefs. There were approximately 25 to 30 groups. Every single one of them spoke out against this legislation.
These amendments attempt to pinpoint the specific areas of the legislation to which groups across this country and people across this country have objected most strongly.
The first two amendments would deal with the extension of the freeze on transfers to the provinces for health care and ior post-secondary education. I find it absolutely remarkable that a government can be proclaiming that it is working for greater prosperity, greater competitiveness in this country, a better education system, and at the same time putting before us clauses such as these two which will would cut back the amount of support available for post-secondary education.
I also have to say that the groups we heard from, with respect to health, represented an impressive array right
across the entire dimensions of the health community in this country. I have in front of me the brief which was presented by the Canadian Medical Association. The Canadian Medical Association is not a radical organization, it is not an organization which has any commitment except to see to it that there is a good health care system in this country. Its recommendation to us was that Bill C-20 be deferred until the results of the review of the tax collection agreements and the federal transfer discussions including the fiscal equalization program are known.
It also suggested to us that there should be legislation introduced to mandate federal support for health programs. It suggested that there has to be a serious look at how we are spending money in the health care field. It has to be done with urgency and it cannot be done if we have the kinds of cutbacks in this bill.
One of the most shocking pieces of evidence came out in the discussions with the Canadian Medical Association.
Here is an initiative from the federal government which will seriously impact the health system of this country. I can tell Canadians across this country this proposal was not even discussed with the medical doctors in this country. It was not discussed with nurses, it was not discussed with the various support staffs which make up our hospitals. It is especially scandalous that it was not even discussed with the medical association in this country.
We also suggest that section 7 dealing with the Public Utilities Income lax Transfer Act should be struck because this too freezes the amount of money which can be transferred to the provinces. The federal government is trying to offload on to the provinces the economic mess which it has made in terms of the deficit over the past seven and a half years.
Section 8 should also be deleted. It is the section which increases premiums for the Unemployment Insurance Act.
We feel that to put this extra tax into effect in the middle of a recession in this country is not just foolish economics, it is tragic for the people who are faced with increased payments at a time when they are already stretched to the limit. We hope that clause will be struck from this legislation.
December 2, 1991

We suggest that section 9 be struck, which also deals with the question of premiums under the UI act.
It has been a remarkable experience to listen to groups from across this country such as the B.C. Association of Community Care, the Canadian Association of University Teachers, the Canadian Co-Operative Association, the Canadian Federation of Labour, the Canadian Federation of Students, the Canadian Health Coalition, the Canadian Labour Congress, the Canadian Medical Association, the Canadian Nurses Association, the Canadian Public Health Association, and one can continue through the list of the health care advocates of British Columbia.
Group after group came before us saying that something needed to be done about health care expenditure and that to tighten the noose around our health care system at this point is a serious threat to the future of medicare in this country.
Medicare is one of those things, perhaps the most important, which tie our country together and give our people a sense of pride and a sense of commitment to Canada. For us to even be thinking about these cutbacks, which will make it more difficult and some groups said impossible to improve our medical care system in Canada and make it work for the future, is a very sad step to take.
I hope this House will not take it. I hope these amendments will be accepted.


Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on these particular amendments.
I would like to take the opportunity to point out to the House that this is one of the most deceptive strategies I have seen used by the NDP in the promotion of health care. That is what it has chosen to do. If you look at the amendments, you will say to yourself: "What is left?" What is left is section 4, which is a Draconian attack on other social programs and education programs in this country. If you looked at the legislation and accepted their strategy, the only thing is that the federal government would do would be able to take money from other programs to protect health care. That sounds like a social good, we all want to protect health care, but this is where the Conservatives and the NDP agree. Instead of providing funds, instead of developing a fair tax strategy and instead of financing this government properly, what it will do is take from every other program in order to support medicare. This is very much reminiscent of the
Government Orders
strategies being tried by other parties, such as the British Labour Party, to focus people in on one program to scare them and, at the same time, make other groups feel very, very vulnerable.
For example, if you followed the NDP strategy on this one, people could lose money from equalization payments affecting post-secondary education. If you look at the brief, which was very carefully omitted in the review by the member for Essex-Windsor, there is a note from the Canadian Federation of Students who were absolutely astounded by the impact that this legislation was going to have on education. If you followed this strategy and these amendments as structured, these students would be made even more vulnerable because it says that the only thing left for the federal government to do to improve health care is to take money from students and from faculty.
This also was raised by the Canadian Association of University Teachers. It found this most Draconian. It can take away equalization payments which are estimated to be $8.4 billion; the financing of the Northwest Territories estimated to be $1.41 billion; grants in lieu of taxes from the municipalities estimated to be $344 million; public utilities income tax transfers estimated at $280 million; statutory subsidies estimated to be $36 million; the cost of income maintenance and social services under the Canada Assistance Plan, $6.4 billion; crop insurance contributions estimated to be $207 million; formula under official languages estimated at $243 million; miscellaneous health and welfare, $170 million; young offenders services, $158 million; justice transfers, $77 million; transportation transfers, $69 million.
This particular strategy, if you follow these amendments, is to side step the most difficult question which is how do you properly finance the health care system?
This government was honest in its strategy. It said: "We are going to cut back to the provinces and we are going to take money from other programs to protect health care". That is an honest strategy. The second strategy is: "Let us ignore what is really going on and let us show people that we are trying to protect medicare. Let us forget about the fact that we are going to take money from other programs. Let them find out after". A good example of this is the strategy being followed by the NDP Government of Ontario where it is taking money from the health care system and closing hospitals. It knows the reality. It has to face this reality. It is not living in a dream world which is reflected in these clauses.

Government Orders
A more direct strategy would be to deal with the legislation in its entirety, to understand that the whole concept is wrong and to vote against the entire bill. To pick and choose a clause such as this is perpetrating, I would dare say, a fraud upon the Canadian public because members will be able to pick out these little speeches and say: "We are really fighting for medicare". In fact, they are destroying medicare and it should be stopped right here.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk about the amendments.
One thing that is becoming very, very clear is that our national medicare program as we now know it in Canada is under attack. It has been under attack for a good number of years, starting in 1977 when the Liberals abandoned the concept of partnership with the federal government and the provinces and the 50/50 sharing of a national health care program.
They finally, in 1982-83, abandoned it further with the 6 and 5 program, when they curtailed the transfer payments to the provinces under EPF. They showed the Tories how they could attack the transfer payments on a systematic basis. Of course, the Tories learned very quickly.
One of things we have to look at is what is the implication for a national health care program. At this point in time in Canadian history, when there is a need and strong reasons for people wanting a national federal government, this government seems to be determined to ensure that in Canada, the national institution that people value most, which is our national medicare, is sacrificed.
It is the one thing that Canadians identify themselves with. When you ask a Canadian why they want to belong to Canada, one of the first things they will mention is our national medicare program.
What has this government done? It has started to erode the ability of the provinces to meet the five criteria set out in the Canada Health Act. The cutbacks that are now taking place that started in 1986, then went on to
Bill C-69 and are now envisioned in this bill, will amount to $62.4 billion by the year 2000.
People should clearly understand that these cutbacks are not based on an escalating cost. The federal government is not obligated to match the cost. It was based on the concept of the increase in the Gross Domestic Product.
In other words, the increase would only be there as the economy increased. Yet, it has said in order to meet our responsibilities for national health care, it is not willing to have this increase continue in spite of the fact there will be a growth in the economy. It simply said it will be zeroed, regardless of the expansion of the economy. This means that there is a $62.4 billion loss to the provinces.
In the final year, it will equal $10.9 billion in that year alone. My home province of British Columbia will have lost over $5 billion by the year 2000, nearly one-half billion dollars in this year alone.
The impact on the weaker provinces has already been devastating. Newfoundland had to lay off 10 percent of its nursing staff. Other provinces have had to cut-out pharmacare programs, dental health programs for children and have had to curtail preventive health majors.
The government will also be in a position with these cuts that it will no longer be in a position to enforce the Canada Health Act because there will be no transfer payments of cash to the provinces, for some provinces as early as 1997 and for all provinces by the year 2004. That means the federal government will no longer be able to enforce their standards.
It has brought in what it thinks is a solution and that is to attach moneys to other programs. We did not even bother to make an amendment to delete it. That section is so odious we even are assured that the Tory backbenchers will rise up and defeat that section. There is no need to make an amendment to delete it. There is not even a Tory in this country who will stand up in this House and say: "In order to enforce accessibility to health care, we are going to take money from starving children under the Canada Assistance Plan".


An hon. member:: The Liberals thought of it.
December 2, 1991


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Yes, the Liberals thought of it. Not even the Tories will have the nerve to stand up in this House and support that they are going to take money from child abuse, investigation and protection of children in child abuse situations, to enforce a standard of accessibility. We do not feel this amendment is necessary as we are quite confident even the Tories will not have the nerve to stand in this House and pass section 4 of this act.
There is no way in this political climate in Canada that the question of federal spending powers is paramount and the ability to direct social programs on a national basis, or that the federal government is going to be allowed to either attach Canada Assistance Plan payments or equalization payments to enforce federal legislation into which it is no longer putting money.
There have been many legal opinions that simply say that section is unconstitutional, do not worry about it, it will never stand a constitutional test. Those constitutional tests are being readied.
With regard to this piece of legislation, I, like my colleague, sat in on many of the committee hearings. Group after group, as diverse as professional groups to community advocacy groups, appeared before that committee and every single one of them condemned this legislation. They condemned it because it is a betrayal of our national institution of medicare. They condemned it because the federal government's only solution to mismanaging the economy and the debt is to off-load that debt on to the provinces and to the provincial health care systems.
It has not saved any money by doing that. In fact, it has jeopardized the provinces' ability to take some innovative approaches to containing health care costs. The innovative approaches are there at the provincial level. All you have to do is look at the reports that have been done by a number of provinces, including the Seaton report done in British Columbia.
The provinces know that there must be certain areas of change within their health care administration. They are willing to make them, to put more emphasis on non-institutional care; to put more emphasis on prevention; to put more emphasis on support. However, they can only
Government Orders
do so if they have dollars. This bill is designed to strangle the very foundation of our national medicare system and regrettably I think with it to strangle Canada as we now know it.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe my ears this morning, that the New Democratic Party, rather than facing this debate head on is trying to set up a diversion. The member talked about all the various people that came to the finance committee to oppose Bill C-20. I found it interesting this morning and I stand to be corrected if he did mention this group, but I did not hear him mention earlier Dr. Michael Rachlis. He made his presentation to the Standing Committee on Finance, opposing Bill C-20 and the fact that it was probably not constitutional. The member failed to mention that, and Dr. Rachlis quite prominently declares that he is a member of the New Democratic Party. He also happens to be a constituent of mine. He has written a book, Second Opinion: What's Wrong with Canada's Health Care System, where he talks about the difficulties with the health care system in Canada. He wrote this book with Ms. Carol Kushner.
What I do not understand from the New Democratic Party is that it does not talk about the thrust of Rachlis where he says that there are some solutions if we would face this problem head on. Instead, the New Democratic Party wants to set up this diversion system where we start toying with taking funding from other programs. I do not think Canadians want us to rob Peter to pay Paul. If we are going to talk in this House about national standards of education, training and retraining, why set up a series of amendments where in order to look after the medical system of this country we are going to take away from the educational system. I think my colleague for Winnipeg North Centre was correct in saying that we are going to oppose these amendments. Hopefully we will have a solid, constructive and creative debate today opposing the government's Bill C-20. I hope in the process of debate we can come up with some ideas of where we can preserve and maintain the standards of our national health care system without bringing in all kinds of diversions.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lumsden):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to take a brief part in this debate. After listening to the two speakers from the Official Opposition I was hard put not to break into tears or throw up.

December 2, 1991
Government Orders
I am reminded of a famous time in the British Parliament in 1945 when Mr. Churchill brought in legislation to extend rationing of coal and fish. Aneurin Bevan, who is one of my political heroes and a famous democratic socialist from Wales by the way, stood up and said: "Mr. Speaker, England is an island of coal surrounded by a sea of fish and only the organizational genius of the right hon. gentleman could see to it that we had a shortage of both".
Canada is a nation that has the resources, the talents and the gifted people to raise the money and finance fully these various programs affected by this legislation. But only the organizational genius of this Tory government could see to it that they are reduced and undermined. We are trying to stop that.
The first speaker from the Official Opposition criticized us because there is one clause that my colleague, our spokesman on this bill, did not move to delete. That is the one to provide penalties to the provinces if they do not abide by the five principles of medicare. We happen to think that when a province tries to undermine any one or more of those five principles, it should be penalized. It should be penalized because there goes universality and there goes comprehensive coverage.
I find it appalling to see any Liberal or any Tory get up and talk about how much they support and are in favour of medicare. The gall and the nerve of them.
I was in Saskatchewan in 1962 when the Liberals and the Tories organized the opposition to the implementation of medicare in that province. They brought out thousands of people in front of the legislative buildings to oppose it. The doctors supported them and the opposing of the implementation of medicare in that province. They wanted to govern according to who could get the largest mob out even though the governmeBnt of the day was elected with a majority and the number one program was the instituting of medical care. I get sick to my stomach when I have to put up with listening to Grits and Tories who have made great talk about how they support medicare.
It was the Liberals in 1975 under the then Minister of Finance, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, who started it. They have the gall to get up and talk about
how they are going to fight this bill and oppose it. They never have believed in it. They never have worked for it or supported it.
The same thing applies to the Conservative government. They are the same breed of cats. There is not any difference. The only difference is one is in and one is out. We have had nothing but the same nonsense.
Liberals tell me how they brought in national medicare in 1966. Do you know why, Mr. Speaker? In 1963 and 1965 there were minority Parliaments. It was people like Tommy Douglas and Stanley Knowles who said to the government: "You bring this in or we'll defeat you". They had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 20th century.
They have convenient memories. They do not like to remember or be reminded. It does not matter which one is in. You have to force them into doing what is decent and civilized and yes even Christian.
I do not understand why any government would have the gall to bring in the cutbacks that are occurring. The Established Programs Financing Act in itself is governed by the fact that the provinces do not get an increase unless their population increases. Under the organizational genius of federal and provincial Tory governments in my province we have had a net outflow of people. Saskatchewan does not need this part of the bill because we are already going to get a reduction because we have had a reduction in population.
I was going to talk about have not provinces but nowadays all the provinces are have not. Ones that were looked upon as wealthy and which contributed the most money to equalization programs are in real trouble. The whole country is in the same boat.
The solution this government has is equivalent to R. B. Bennett of 1935 and then Mackenzie King right up until the declaration of war which is cut back and reduce. One Minister of Finance said to T. C. Douglas the then member for Weyburn: "The hon. member must think that money grows on gooseberry bushes". Within a week after the declaration of war the Liberal government of that day found the bush. There was lots of money. All of a sudden we were rolling in it to do anything and everything that needed to be done to prosecute a war. If any war was ever justified that one was.
December 2, 1991

If you were to take the national debt at the end of the Second World War and translate it into 1991 dollars it would be greater than the one we have now. If you took the deficit at the last fiscal year during the Second World War and translated it into 1991 dollars it would be equal to if not greater than the present one.


An hon. member:: But we paid it off.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You're damn right we paid it off. Following the war we had to rebuild our entire economy. Our manufacturing plants and our municipal infrastructure all had to be rebuilt. All had gone through the dirty thirties and the wartime and little could had been put into them. We had full employment. When you have full employment people pay taxes. Within 10 years all those debts were paid off. Without a full employment policy no party or government can really do anything about our annual deficit and our debt.
There is so much that has to be done and needs to be done in this country. It hits you in the face every time you go back to your own constituency and your own province. There are scores of cities and large towns in this country that have a waiting list as long your arm for chronic care beds, senior citizen housing, low income co-op housing, sewer and water systems that are worn out and raw sewage that runs into our lakes and rivers. It all needs to be fixed. It means hundreds of thousands of jobs. A quarter of a million people could be put to work over the next 10 years just to clean up our air and our water.
The governments we have had since 1867 do not know what to do or how to do it. They have neither the courage nor the interest to do it because it is not in the interests of the corporations who support and finance them. I invite my hon. friends to read a little book called The Unnecessary Evil, not written by an NDPer but by Professor Rubin Ballen of the University of Manitoba. I invite members to read it. He throws into a cocked hat all the nonsense we have been getting ad nauseam about debt and deficits.
The cutting back that is going on now and that started with the Liberals in 1975 has been self-defeating because unemployment got worse and the debt got worse. He showed that up for the kind of nonsense it is.
I want to compliment my colleague for his amendments. They do what we think needs to be done with this
Government Orders
legislation unless the government has the courage of its convictions and withdraws the whole damned thing.


Ronald MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make some comments about the amendments that have been put forward. I take particular umbrage at my colleague for Regina- Lumsden who many times debates strongly in this House and did so just a few weeks ago dealing with the merchant mariners. It was an action I supported.
I cannot sit here and allow the NDP version of history to go into Hansard unchallenged. There are times in this House where you either sit back and laugh or you stand up and put your position clearly on the record. It galls me a little bit too much whenever I hear the self-righteous group to my left over here-they are truly to my left-getting up and trying to rewrite history. My goodness if we listened to the member for Regina-Lumsden, they were responsible for the sun shining in this place since the New Democratic Party was formed and prior to that CCF.
I have a great deal of respect for the CCF part and their traditions. I have a great deal of respect for some of the statesmen that party has produced like Tommy Douglas and Stanley Knowles who sits at this table as an honorary officer. But I take a great deal of umbrage at the hon. member trying to take credit for every single good measure that was put in by people like Lester B. Pearson, a Liberal Prime Minister and the protections that were given to health care in this country by the ministers and the government of Pierre-Elliott Trudeau.


An hon. member:: When were they in office?


Ronald MacDonald: One of my colleagues asks: "When were they in office?" They have not been in office. I am not illiterate. I read as much as I can about the history of this place and the history of the various political philosophies and how they unfold. If you listen to the New Democratic Party this Parliament must have been shuddering.
It must have been just shaking in its boots during that period when health care, medicare, came in here. It must have been waiting for the New Democratic Party over here to the left to come in and bang the desk and say: "Let's do this or otherwise you are going to be out of this place". Absolute nonsense.

December 2, 1991
Government Orders
It is absolute nonsense to take away the contribution of people like Pierre-Elliott Trudeau, Lester B. Pearson or Allan J. MacEachen who were the social conscience of this place and who were responsible for more socially progressive legislation than almost anybody who sat in this place. Monique Begin stood against the provinces that were coming forward with user fees. The hon. member was here during that period.
If the member wants to get up and speak on the amendments and on the regressive nature of this bill, so be it. He has a responsibility and a right to do it. I also have a right to get up and put the record straight.
Anybody who reads the history of this place knows what I am saying is correct. It appears that it is fine for the hon. member to get up on his hind feet and to bay at the moon whenever a bill comes in here. Those members want to take credit for anything that was done by the Liberal Party.
He also has to understand that there have been certain actions taken by colleagues who wear his own cloth, his New Democratic colleagues, particularly in the province of Ontario, like Mr. Bob Rae, "Mr. Cut-cut". He comes in with a promise that everything is going to be fine in la-la land. He was going to pave every street and there were going to be two chickens in every pot. The New Democrats can do that.
What do they do? They come into the province of Ontario in a fluke. It was an absolute fluke that the people of Ontario elected a majority of New Democrats to the government. It was 37 per cent or 38 per cent who came forward and voted for the New Democrats. By luck they got in and it has been nothing but downhill since in Ontario.
I come from a part of Canada that has been a have not part of Canada for a long time. I am going to tell you right now, I think I would rather live in Nova Scotia than in Ontario led by Bob Rae and the New Democrats. There is a hospital a day closing. They are merging them, they are shutting beds down, they are denying help to those who need help the most in the province of Ontario.
Yet the New Democratic Party gets up here and wants to say: "Look, what we are going to have to do is to set the record straight. If medicare is good, we will take the credit for it. If UIC is good, we will take the credit for it".
Parliament must be changed because I am in this place and I certainly feel that I can get up and articulate my position on any issue I want. I look across here and we are always trying to advise the government about better ways to come forward with legislative programs. Sometimes it listens but most times it does not. It must have been a different place back in 1966 when medicare came in. We must have all had an NDP guardian angel sitting on our shoulder who used to whisper sweet nothings in our ears the night before. Then we would come in, do all that was right and just and the NDP would take the credit for it.
My hon. colleague, the minister opposite, said he was here at that point. He assures me that the New Democrats were not angels. I will leave it to my hon. colleague to explain what they were at that point.
Let us set the record straight. These particular amendments do not address the substance or the intent of the bill. It is fine to say take this away or do that. We are in favour of preserving medicare, and that is a very noble endeavour.
We fought for that since we introduced it and passed it in this place as Liberals in 1966. We will continue to fight for that.
To talk about making the poor poorer and giving the government the ability to walk in and start tampering with some other transfers for social programs which are equally as important to those individuals who have to rely on those transfers is irresponsible in my view.
It is fine for the member opposite from the New Democratic Party to come in here and to rewrite history in the 20 brief minutes he had. I would hope that anybody who is watching this debate will look at the substance of the bill. The bill is bad. The amendments put forward by the New Democratic Party are equally as bad because they ring hollow when put up to public scrutiny.
As for the explanations given by my hon. colleague who has delivered some masterful speeches on the right issues in this House and who has had my support on those occasions, even his fancy rhetoric cannot give depth and body to the shallow amendments that have been put forward by his colleague.
December 2, 1991


Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting history lesson for the last 20 minutes from a variety of perspectives. I would like to comment on the speech of my colleague from Regina-Lumsden who has put it into the proper perspective.
I remember being a very young person at the time when medicare came in to Saskatchewan and if it had not been for the political courage of people like Tommy Douglas, this country would still not have a medicare program, and that is a fact.
The member for Dartmouth has just gone on about people baying at the moon. I think he should look in the mirror to get a good example of what baying at the moon is all about.
Medicare in Canada is something that all Canadians treasure. They see it as being uniquely Canadian, something they have worked and struggled for over a long period of time. During the depression many people were without medical care. My mother-in-law, who was a young girl in Saskatchewan then, had appendicitis and her family could not afford a doctor. If it had not been for her older brother picking her up and saying to her mother and father "she's got to get to the hospital", she would not be alive today because the appendix had broken. The situation for ordinary people at that time was that you simply could not go to a doctor because it was a choice between feeding your family or finding medical care. They left it too long. It was not a situation of not caring, it was a situation of not being able.
That has changed in Canada today. People can go to hospitals and can attend doctors, and we cannot see that eroded by the successive Liberal and Conservative governments.
We see delegations coming up to Canada from the United States over and over again to examine our medicare system. There is a bigger movement in the United States now asking for a medical system in the United States similar to the situation in Canada. What those delegations have discovered and what Canadians have discovered through those delegations is that our system of a national medicare program is far more cost effective than the system of private medical care in the United States. Not only is it fairer and not only do people have access to medical care, but it is more cost
Government Orders
effective than the system in the United States. It saves money, it does not cost more money.
What have we seen in the last several years? In 1977, first of all, it was the Liberals who changed the cost sharing mechanism for medicare and EPF. They changed it from the 50:50 financing between the federal government and the provincial governments. That was the first step at eroding national medical care, and we can thank the Liberals for that.
After that Mulroney came to power in 1984 and what did he promise? He promised then to maintain transfer payments. He talked about a sacred trust for Canadians on social programs. In 1986 this government, the Conservative government, started its attack on EPF funding and medicare and post-secondary education.
In 1990 the Conservatives brought in Bill C-69 which froze the entitlements at the EPF levels of 1989 until 1992. Now we have Bill C-20 which extends that until 1994 or 1995.
These EPF cuts endanger our health care system and they endanger our post-secondary education system.
The impact on the country is huge. A freeze to the EPF, this bill, means a loss of over $97 billion by the year 2000. These are not little bits of money we are talking about, these are massive cuts in programs that Canadians have come to treasure.
What do the messages in this bill bring to Canadians who are waiting for hospital beds? In my province of British Columbia we have long waiting lists for hospital beds. We have a situation in which people who are waiting for heart operations are forced to go down to Seattle because there is not enough operating room time to take care of our own people.
These cuts, combined with the other Draconian policies of the Conservative government, mean a loss of over $5 billion to British Columbia by the year 2000. We are already in a critical health care situation. We already have people lined up. I get more letters from constituents who are concerned and angry because one of their family members cannot get into a hospital to get the required surgery with these waits and these line-ups. This is only going to get worse with the cutbacks and freezing of transfer payments.

Government Orders
This bill is actually a direct threat to the national standards as they are set out under the Canada Health Act. The people who are most affected by the cuts of the Conservative government, and this bill is just another example of that ongoing mania of cut, cut, cut, are women and children.
A subcommittee of the House of Commons is having hearings on the increased incidence of breast cancer for Canadian women and women in North America, the whole issue of reproductive health care for women, the whole issue of health care for children, and on Canada with over a million children living in poverty. These cuts are a further erosion of the services that women and children need from our society. This is opening the door for over-billing, for fee for services, for cutting services, for transferring insurance to private insurance, for creating in our country a two-tiered health system.
Women and children are always the hardest hit when health care becomes inaccessible. Single mothers and children make up the majority of lower income families. This government goes on with its tax giveaways to big business while all the time turning its back on people who need help most. It is turning its back on children who are living in poverty and children who are lining up at food banks for a basket of groceries with their mothers. The low income citizens and the middle class are always the ones who bear the brunt of Conservative policies.
This bill also attacks our post-secondary education system at a time when under-funding is already crippling Canadian universities. How can this government talk ad nauseam about economic growth, competition, competing in the world market on one hand while continuing to weaken the very institutions which can provide the training and technology that the people of Canada need in order to compete in the world markets? How can it continue to talk about equality for women while it reduces women's access to quality education?
Education will give women the opportunity they need to get into higher paying jobs and help to break the cycle of poverty for women. Women in this country still earn only 66 per cent of what men do for full-time, full-year work. This government is again slamming the door on women and slamming the door on young people, Canadians who will not be able to afford a university education.
My colleague from Regina said earlier that in the late 1930s when money was needed it was found to fight a war. The same thing happened in this House a year ago. Now we hear that there are no funds for child care, we hear that there are no funds for health care, none for social services. Money was found to fight the gulf war.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to join in this debate today because as we were planning it we thought it was significant that there be a major discussion about what will be, without question, a turning point in the history of this country.
The turning point is simply that the federal government is dramatically altering the role it plays in a variety of programs it shares with the provinces such as education, health care, housing and social programming. New ideas are just beginning to get developed around care for children and around issues that perhaps were not talked about a decade ago such as child abuse and the abuse of women.
Now we are just beginning to identify the problem and starting to put in place some programs that will rectify that. We all admit that they are the last programs in and so they will struggle for funding under normal times. This bill puts a beach head in place which says we should not count on the federal government to carry its fair share any more. It has abandoned that.
As I watched the debate, the first thing that struck me as being odd is why there are no Conservative members standing up to defend the cause. Then the answer became apparent. They did not need to. Their traditional allies are standing up defending their cause.
At one time it used to be said that Liberals were Tories in a hurry. These days, that is wrong. These days Tories are Liberals in a hurry. Where Pierre-Elliott Trudeau only wanted a six and five mandatory wage restraint program across the country, the Tories are not satisfied with that kind of peanuts, they want zero, absolutely nothing.

I recall being a health critic for the provincial party in the late seventies. The person with whom I argued at that time was a Liberal, Monique Begin, a very fine person, but she put in place the Established Programs Financing system, block funding and a number of other variations to the traditional means whereby the federal government shared its costs with the provinces.
At that time in each of the provinces there was not an outcry but a warning that this would make it easy for the federal government to begin to retreat from its obligations. I recall at the time she said: "No, we would never do that" and then promptly proceeded to do just exactly that.
I recall at the time people were saying: "This is going to make it very difficult to get new programs in place because while we struggle with a restraint package from Ottawa, we have to kind of work with an existing system".
There has been a lot of discussion here today about the health care system in Canada. It is perhaps one of the foremost in the world. It is far from being a perfect system however. It struggles to adjust to new conditions, not just new funding, but new technology, new ideas and new concepts. That is understandable because people who are dominating the health care system in this country are trained in very traditional ways and have probably worked a long time to establish the kind of programs for health care that they know about and are familiar with.
When someone comes along and suggests to them that perhaps traditional care in a hospital bed is not the only way to provide care, they listen to those arguments with great caution. They are not terribly receptive to them. I would say it is reasonable to judge their performance as being cautiously accepting that as true, that perhaps there are community health centres that could do it in a more cost efficient way, but they are very cautious people.
To get them to change from one type of provision of care to another is going to take a little while, a little pushing and shoving and a little convincing. I think that process is under way.
The tragedy though is simply this: to accept what is in this bill, to accept what the Liberals and the Tories are so valiantly supporting this morning, is to accept that no new ideas will ever make their way to the forefront. It
Government Orders
means wrecking one system to try to put in place another without providing any kind of transition.
That I think goes across the board no matter what kind of care you are trying to provide. If you are trying to provide some different kind of care for people who run afoul of the law and you do not like the prisons, which none of us do, and you do not like the traditional punishment approach, which none of us do, and you want to try something else, how do you get the something else in place? How do you provide the new model for providing care and counselling and treatment in place?
The truth is in all of our ridings. These things are happening but they are struggling. While many of us were happy to see an old prison system virtually taken apart, I think all of us would be equally unhappy at the moment that we do not have the reasonable financing in place to provide some alternative to that. We are stuck between the two.
Many of us are advocates of a great many things that have to do with the needs of women in a modern day society, providing child care, providing proper housing, providing some kind of counselling, providing some kind of retraining. All of us will be familiar that in our communities these ideas are just getting started.
I would not be thrilled with a government that said it is putting on the brakes to everything it has ever done in terms of traditionally providing health care for the very young or the very old. I would not be happy if it said it was stopping dead in the water on that and it was going to channel some money into new ideas. I do not think it can work that way. I believe that what we need is a sensible, rational and logical transition from one type of providing care to people to something that might look quite different.
In the end the different type of care might be more cost effective. In my view that is not the argument. The argument ought to be whether it is better care. It will be incidental that it will be done with fewer tax dollars.
The final argument that I want to make this morning is one of perception. I admit that right off the bat. Maybe it has not much to do with the reality of how you divide up the tax dollar. But it is incredibly frustrating for Canadian citizens in their own homes to read about a government preaching restraint that paid $104,000 to transport one person from Senegal back to Ottawa.

December 2, 1991
Government Orders
It is real tough for people in my riding who will not get an increase in whatever their benefits are this year and who struggle for the kind of programs that they desperately need to know that the Minister of National Revenue spent $10,000 to go and talk to the Rotary Club in Hamilton.
We think it is fine that he goes and talks to them. We think it is fine to provide adequate transportation for the minister to go back to Saskatchewan at $35,000 a crack. What we are struggling with is simply the notion of how in the world we can talk of spending that kind of money in one breath and talk about restraint for everybody else with the next.
If we saw you on the trains we would say it was great but that you probably should not be riding the trains all the time because you are tired. If we provide you with money to take commercial aircraft we would probably say it was all right. We understand you work hard and are tired and you need a break. Travel is a difficult part of political life.
What people do not understand and cannot fathom is how you can blithely go on spending money like that and preach restraint to them at the same time. In my riding this happens every single day. Someone walks in with an example of how government spends its money and then says that you have to be restrained in how you are provided with services.
That is what is wrong with this country. That is what these amendments attempt to propose. The debate has been interesting to say the least.


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks about this bill. I would like to start by saying that I have experienced over the last couple of years my own husband being in and out of hospitals suffering from cancer. I cannot say too strongly how very important, valuable and cherished our Canadian health system is. This is despite the fact that this government and the previous Liberal government incidentally have continuously eroded the cost of federal funding. This in turn has caused provinces to cut back and take measures such as user fees and so on which are contrary to the Canada Health Act.
From personal experience it is wonderful to know that when you are under stress that you do have a secure health system and that there are not going to be a lot of bureaucratic hassles and worry about paying bills and cuts in services that are absolutely essential.
On the other hand I can also say from personal experience that it is deplorable to know that at this time certainly in British Columbia, and I am quite sure it is the same throughout Canada, there are wards of beds that are empty because hospitals cannot afford to finance adequate services to use the facilities to capacity. There are wonderful health care workers, including nurses and others, who continue to provide highly professional caring and services. I certainly commend them.
On the other hand they are overworked. There is no question about that. There is not enough staff. There is the whole question of para-professionals which in our provinces have been cut back. They have a significant impact on the extent and nature of the services.
As my colleague from New Westminster said, there are long waits for operations and for specialized services that are needed. In British Columbia we are also very concerned about the new commission appointed by the previous government. Interestingly enough, it recently came out with a report advocating some very positive reforms in health care services such as the kind of delivery services where we should be giving much greater emphasis to community based services and to prevention. It also advocates home care support so that institutional services which are often not as personalized and that are certainly more expensive will not be used to the same degree.
There are many reforms needed but we must have the finances to maintain and replace services that have been cut and to consider new kinds of community support services.
What is this government doing? There is no question that this government, which has cut back I believe four times in health care financing, has taken over $42 billion from Canada's health care services. This includes the cuts that will be forthcoming if this bill passes. Forty-two billion dollars will be taken from Canadian health care services.
I wonder how that will impact on the services for your family and mine and for Canadians across the country. It will have a devastating impact. I notice in some of the notes I have here also that we asked for the comments of the present minister of health. I will quote from a comment that was made on May 28, 1991 when he was being questioned about user fees as far as medicare is concerned. This was in relation to Quebec's plan to introduce a user fee for emergency ward services. He responded at that time as follows:

Government Orders
If you charge a user fee I fear that poor people will not go for the
service because they will fear having to pay money. I will never accept
two health systems; one for the poor and one for the rich.
That is a risk that is happening and he is absolutely right. The Minister of National Health and Welfare goes on to say: "If there is anything against the law I will act".
I would think this minister then should be acting very strongly to oppose this present bill which will cut the EPF funding for health care services and also for post-secondary education which is another very serious concern.
He should be the first one up on his feet saying that he does not support this bill. It is a very sneaky way of cutting back on funding because it means that health care services are eroded over a five-year period so that in effect EPF funding is removed altogether.
A brief from the Canadian Nurses Association to the Standing Committee on Finance stated that Bill C-20 represents the fourth successive attempt by the government to limit the federal role in medicare. It says that the cumulative effect of these changes is set out in a table which it provided and which shows that $42 billion will be taken from health care services by 1992 by the Conservative government.
We know also that the previous Liberal government said today how strongly they support medicare. I have a great deal of respect for the previous minister Monique Begin. But even Monique Begin when she was minister allowed block funding and the bills that established EPF funding to go through. Of course she found later that she had to defend very strongly the federal position and put some limits on provincial funding until they would adhere to the terms of the Canada Health Act.
I would like to remind people that the Canada Health Act which Canadians are so proud of is a goal that many Americans would love to see for their country. It established five principles for health care and they have worked well in this country. We have one of the best health care services in the world. We also have one of the most economically feasible health care systems.
Those five principles were universality, accessibility, comprehensiveness, public administration and portability so that we would not have a different kind of health service in different provinces as a person moves from one province to another. These are very sound principles that have been put to the test over the years since the Health Care Act was first introduced.
It is a tragedy and I hope that Canadians will realize that Bill C-20 and the kind of bills that were passed last year which eroded health care funding are eroding the basic Canada Health Act. It will be literally impossible for provincial governments to maintain universality, accessibility, portability, comprehensiveness and public administration in the way that it was intended under this act if they do not have the financing from the federal government to assist in doing this.
We have seen provincial governments bringing in user fees and using other means to cut back on access to health care partly because they do not have adequate funding.
I would like to mention some of the points that were raised at the finance committee by the health care advocates of British Columbia and I commend them for the brief to that committee. It is an excellent review of the evolution and the devolution of health care services in Canada. They point out that the principles of Canadian medicare as set out in the Canada Health Act must be preserved.
The Conservative government has deepened these cuts to the point where federal cash transfers for medicare and post-secondary education will end in a few years. These are not just cutbacks. It likes the public to think it is just cutbacks because of the deficit situation. Of course the Conservative love to blame social programs for that deficit.
The public needs to know that it is not just cutbacks. It is the actual demise of medicare and of post-secondary education funding as we know it over the next five years.

December 2, 1991
Government Orders
The health care advocates of British Columbia go on to say that the federal government passed the Medicare Act in 1966 under which it had agreed to fund half the cost of the provincial medicare insurance plans. Within six years every province had set up a plan that met these national standards. It is so important to maintain the national standards under our constitutional reforms that they are being debated as well. We must make sure these are maintained in our future programs.
Medicare has not only been one of the most important social programs in Canada, it is a point of pride and it is what makes us different as Canadians. It makes us proud to be Canadians and it brings unity to this country, a unity that is being eroded by this veiy bill. I know Canadians do not want that.
We are proud that our health care is the best in the world. In contrast the United States has more than 30 million people who lack health care. In Canada we have health insurance coverage for everyone. Some people will say it is too expensive. On the other hand if we look at the facts 9 per cent of Canada's gross domestic product is accounted for by health care whereas nearly 12 percent of the GDP in the United States is taken up by health care.
It is economically very fair. We must vote down this bill. My colleague had presented amendments in order to tiy alleviate the impact of this bill. It is a deplorable situation. I wish I had time to elaborate on the post-secondary education.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George -Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to enter into the debate today even for a short time on this very important legislation.
The government is slowly chipping away at the health and post-secondary education system that we set up in this country. It is chipping away at it and it is doing it, as my colleague from Vancouver East said, in a very sneaky way.
Do you know why? Let us take a look at what six pages of legislation are going to do. They are six pages in a bill called C-20, an act to amend certain statutes to implement the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 1991. Unfortunately these six pages sum up what this government is doing to health and post-secondary education in Canada. It should be ashamed of itself for bringing this kind of legislation into the House.
I appreciate that members of the New Democratic Party are here today debating this bill and defending one of the cornerstones of what makes Canada what it is. One of the pillars which make Canada such an important and wonderful place to live is the health care system we have developed here.
To members on the opposite side who are critical of medicare and what it means, I suggest they go down to the United States and tear up their medicare card. I dare them to do that. They know that they will not do that. We have to defend medicare against this government and other parties that are doing their best to destroy the health care system.
There are a couple of other points that are important about what this government has done and what it is carrying on with. Under the Liberals in 1977 the system was changed from a system which basically tagged and identified the transfer of funds from the federal government to the provinces in the areas of post-secondary education and health to what is referred to as block funding. Provinces can basically spend the money on whatever priorities they see fit.
Allegations have been made that a number of provinces use federal health and post-secondary funding to pave highways and what have you. It is alleged that the previous government in British Columbia, the cousins of the government members here, used some of those funds at that time to finance boondoggles like the Coquihalla and other aspects like that.
To try and clarify that I asked the Secretary of State during a debate in the House if he could tell this House and give assurances to Canadians that when the federal government did transfer the federal funds for health and education, those funds were spent on health and education. The Secretary of State of the day said that we would have trust him that that was the case.
If the Canadian public, the taxpayers, knew that the Government of Canada transfers to the provinces some billions of dollars, and yet the minister responsible for that could not tell this House for sure that the money was being spent on health and education, I think taxpayers of this country would demand accountability from this Parliament. They would demand that we be able to tell them what we are going to do.
December 2, 1991

That changed from 1977 under the Liberals when they brought in block funding. I suggest that the Parliament of Canada should return to a system of a 50/50 funding basis, equal partners in the delivery of health and post-secondary education in Canada.
I think there is an obligation on the part of the Government of Canada to explain and to account to Canadian taxpayers for where that money is going. Usually, the argument we have from the federal government is: "Well, we do not get enough publicity out of it. We do not get to put our four by eight signs up".
I say that it is its own fault if the government cannot get enough publicity out of the money it spends on post-secondary education and health in the provinces. If you look at the statistics from my own province where transfer payments are going down and in which the former government was leading a fight against this government, you can see the impact that the federal role has. I accuse this government of not having the brains to try and explain to Canadians just what kind of federal involvement there can be. What we are seeing is the reverse. This government is making every effort it can to see that our health care system and post-secondary education system do not get the assistance and help they need.
We all have personal experiences concerning our contact with the health care system. I have had it this year and have gained some understanding of what it means when a member of your family has to use our health care system. In one particular case in my family the system reached the point at which this member has to go to Seattle now for health care. It is incredible that my father would have to go to Seattle to get cancer treatment because there is not room or enough facilities for him in Canada.
The members opposite sit here and heckle and talk about how they are not destroying health care. I dare you to say that to my father in Seattle today. I dare you to say that, because that is what is happening under right wing governments like this Conservative administration and like the Socred administration. Hopefully the new governments that have been elected across this country
Government Orders
provincially, and especially in British Columbia, will result in a revolution in health care in which we can develop health care standards that are necessary to ensure that Canadian citizens continue to receive the medical treatment they need.


Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins -Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise today to speak on this bill. A lot has been said about the health care and the post-secondary education clauses in this bill, but not a lot has been said about clauses 8, 9 and 10 in the section of this bill that addresses the increase in the UI premiums. I know a lot of people think this is a fait accompli, that no more discussion should be undertaken and nothing should be said about it.
I notice a lot of government members are throwing remarks across the floor. They are not obscene remarks, they are taken in good nature, but I do not see any of the members rising to make any public statements on any of these clauses or on any of our arguments. Why do they not get up and say something if they have something to say? They just sit there and would rather just ramble on.
The increase in unemployment insurance rates is something that is severely affecting all of the country. We see the number of lay-offs, the number of bankruptcies, the number of people who are just being put out of work and the number of companies and grocery stores that are closing because they just cannot take any more taxation. We see increases with the GST and now with this 7.1 per cent increase in UI premiums it means that more people are going to be laid off.
What is the effect? There are so many people out of work now that the unemployment insurance system cannot keep up. Last year in June we saw an increase of 24 per cent in UI premiums. The then Minister of Finance said that the government would meet any shortfall the system may have, but not six months later we saw a 24 per cent increase. Now we see another increase of 7.1 per cent which is going to take effect this year.
The original Unemployment Insurance Act, section
48.1	reads: "Notwithstanding section 48 the rate of premiums that persons employed in insurable employment are required to pay on each of 1990, 1991 and 1992 is 2.25 per cent of insurable earnings in that year".

December 2, 1991
Government Orders
We heard, as I mentioned, the Minister of Finance say that the government would make up any shortfalls that may occur. Then we saw a few months later a 24 per cent increase. That was in June.
Now it is December and we see an increase. Why are there these continuous increases? It is because more and more people are being put out of work, so more and more people are collecting UI benefits. Fewer and fewer people are paying into it.
It is a vicious circle. We are never going to catch up unless we come up with a plan, a program, that is going to create employment. That is the answer: full employment. Then the UI system will not have to be subsidized by anyone.
The way we are going now, we see more and more people being laid off. We see more and more people collecting UI. It is never going to end.
The amendment which is being proposed by my colleague from Essex-Windsor is one that will rectify a wrong. It will force the government to abide by the statement that was made by the finance minister that day when he said the government would make up any shortfalls.
We cannot allow this to continue. Regarding the government's economic policies and its fiscal restraint policies, it is telling everyone else that they have to cut back and it does not. The government wants to pull back any funding that it puts into any program and it wants to wash its hands of everything and it wants the taxpayers to take up the slack that its failure is causing.
We need fiscal responsibility and it has to start on that side of the House. We need a government that is going to show some confidence in this country because there is no more confidence in this country. The morale in Canada is so low that everyone wants to move away. Where are they going to go? Where are they going to go to work? There is a grocery chain in Timmins, a local company which has been there for 30 years, which just announced last week that it is closing. It is closing right down completely.
The food banks are growing. There is something wrong. People do not have the money to spend on groceries because they are not working. Mines weekly announce they are closing, they are laying off personnel. If something is not done soon, there will be no more mining industry.
It is time that Canadians realized that something has to change and that message has to be relayed to the government. This bill, Bill C-20, which allows the government to withdraw all funding from just about all programs is not acceptable.
I hope that when we get to vote on clauses 8, 9 and 10 of this bill, we all rise and support these amendments put forward by my colleague from Essex-Windsor. It is clear to me that employers and employees cannot afford any more taxation of any kind if we are going to survive. If we are really sincere about creating jobs I think this government has to start spending some money in the right places.
There is no doubt in any Canadian's mind that we have to pay taxes in this country. We are willing to pay those taxes. How the money is spent is what we do not like. If the money is spent in the right place, we will not need subsidization. We will not need the government to bail us out all the time because we will have a system in which money will be regenerated and turned back into the organizations creating this money.
In conclusion, I hope that when we get to the amendments of clauses 8, 9 and 10 of Bill C-20, we all rise and support them.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
December 2, 1991


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 3. Is it the pleaure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on Motion No. 4. A vote on Motion No. 4 will also apply to Motions Nos. 5 and 6.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


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


Some hon. members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of deferred divisions on Bill C-20, an act to amend certain statutes to implement the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 1991, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), I have been requested by the chief government Whip to defer the division until a later time, three o'clock this afternoon. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(8), the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until three o'clock p.m. later this day at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.


Mr. Hawkes:: Mr. Speaker, there have been some consultations and I think you will find a predisposition in the Chamber to suspend until 1.59 this day, which means we will come back in time for Statements Pursuant to S. O. 31 and Question Period. Then we will have the vote and then proceed with the next item on Government Orders.


[Stage Direction]
SUSPENSION OF SITTING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it agreed to suspend the sitting?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is so agreed.
The sitting of the House is suspended until 1.59 p.m.
The sitting of the House was suspended at 1.42 p.m.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Bob Wood (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, this week marks the first annual white ribbon campaign. The campaign has been organized to help end violence against women and to heighten the awareness of men to this ever-growing problem.
Violence against women takes many forms, including physical and sexual assault, psychological and emotional abuse. It also threatens women of all ages, culture and backgrounds. When we look at the recent rash of violent acts committed by men against women it would seem that the word "civilized" is not part of our vocabulary.

December 2, 1991
Women are being gunned down, knifed, and beaten in record numbers but this is not a new phenomenon. It has been going on for quite some time.
I would encourage my male colleagues in this House, and all men across Canada for that matter, to take a leadership role in stopping this madness. It is up to us to give victims some hope. We must challenge conventional attitudes and behaviour. We must instil in our youth a new way of looking at humanity. We cannot stay silent any longer because, as with other atrocities, we become as guilty as the offender.
This week has been designated to raise awareness of the issue, but we cannot forget about the remaining 51 weeks in the year. I hope all men will wear a white ribbon to indicate their support for this cause. The country may not be covered with white snow, but we can cover it with white ribbons.


ST. ANDREW'S CHURCH ON THE RED
Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk-Red River):: Mr. Speaker, today I would like to congratulate the efforts of the congregation of St. Andrew's Church on the Red.
The people of this church under the leadership of Father Stephen Sharman and with the help of the Government of Canada are about to begin the restoration of the oldest stone church in western Canada.
At a time when we are all concerned about where we are going, it is important to know where we have been. The efforts of the people of St. Andrew's on the Red will assure us of this very important part of our history.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, it has now been two years since the tragedy at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal. Since that time the war against women has continued. Men continue to abuse, neglect, harass, assault, and murder women. We as men must take on the work of educating ourselves in
order to understand sexism and speak out and challenge sexism in our daily lives.
We must work to pressure governments to increase funding for rape crisis centres, for shelters for battered women, and for comprehensive educational programs for men in positions of authority such as the judiciary, police departments and, indeed, in this House.
Men must take responsibility for the violence they have perpetrated in our homes and in our streets. This week is a time to commit ourselves to change, to speaking out, to helping out through donations and action. This week hundreds of men have worked to initiate the white ribbon campaign. Men across Canada are urged to hang a white ribbon from their house, their car, or at their work place, and to wear a white ribbon.
The white ribbon symbolizes a call for all men to lay down their arms in the war against our sisters. We must heed that call.



Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my two hon. friends from across the way on the same topic.
I do not think any caring Canadian men can condone violence against women. What is difficult for many of us is to accept the premise that all men, including those who would never lift a finger against anyone, are partially responsible for this violence. This is the rationale behind the white ribbon campaign which runs from today until this Friday, the second anniversary of the tragic and troubling Montreal massacre.
I rise today as one man in Canadian society to say that I fully accept my responsibility to try and be a part of the solution to this problem. The best result of this campaign will be an increased awareness among all of us that sexism in any form, from jokes to harassment to violence itself, is unacceptable.
It is time that the least we can do is say that we are all very sorry.


HOSTAGES
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, we in this House are very happy that the American hostage in Lebanon, Joseph Cicippio, has been released today. He was freed hours after Israel released 25 Arab prisoners.
There are only a few western hostages left in captivity and we have hopes that their ordeals will end in the coming weeks, if not days.
Besides the increasing good will developing in the Middle East, the key to their release has been constant pressure and relentless efforts by the international community.
Unfortunately, our joy is not complete. A Canadian woman, Mrs. Henriette Haddad, has been held hostage in Lebanon for more than six years. To this point, despite meetings with the family, the minister responsible for external affairs has refused to even put Mrs. Haddad's name on the list of hostages.
As the family told my colleague, the member for Winnipeg South Centre this week, the Canadian government does not even acknowledge that Mrs. Haddad is a hostage.
Our government has a duty to stand up for our citizens, as we have seen the American and other governments do over the hostage takings in Lebanon. We want Mrs. Haddad to be freed and we want the Canadian government to demand international pressure for her release as soon as possible.


UKRAINIAN INDEPENDANCE
Mr. Benoit Tremblay (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, the Ukrainian community of my riding welcomed the results of the independence referendum in their home country with great pride, joy and hope. This democratic exercise gave the Ukrainian people an opportunity to clearly express their sovereign will after 350 years of injustice and forced union.
Of course, President Gorbachev made threats. "Without Ukraine, there is no union, and without union, there will be neither social peace nor market economy and the country will sink into ethnic strife and anarchy", he said.
Instead, we see a new democratic country being bom, one that is open, tolerant toward its minorities and ready to associate on a normal basis of mutual interest rather than in a dominant/dominated relationship.
I hope that Ukrainian independence will be recognized immediately by Canada and all countries in the world.
I also wish to deplore our government's decision not to include the hon. member for Calgary Northeast, who is of Ukrainian origin, in the Canadian parliamentary delegation to supervise the referendum, even though he was officially invited and he is a knowledgeable observer of Ukraine's democratic evolution.


NATIONAL WILDLIFE STRATEGY
Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, another step toward Canada's green future was taken last Friday with the launching of the National Wildlife Strategy. The strategy, part of Canada's green plan, will protect wildlife diversity, conserve wildlife habitat and safeguard healthy ecosystems.
Efforts to recover populations of endangered species will be stepped up. Plans are in the works to identify habitat to protect national wildlife areas and migratory bird sanctuaries. Significant wetlands will be protected.
Research schedules on wildlife diseases, ecology and toxicology will be accelerated. The new National Wildlife Strategy goes hand in hand with new legislation before the House. The Wild Animal and Plant Protection Act is designed to protect wildlife, particularly endangered species from illegal trading and poaching. Several partnerships are emerging to save wildlife and wild places.
Governments, community groups and individuals are all working toward that common goal. The federal government is proud to be part of such a widespread commitment to wildlife.

December 2, 1991
I urge all members of the House and all Canadians to support these and other green plan projects contributing to a healthy environment.


GOAL 100
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, Goal 100 is a pilot project in employment partnership developed under the Industry Education Council in Hamilton. This project is geared to improving the success and cost effectiveness of employment related services for people with disabilities.
Small businesses under the leadership of Don Fell of Fell Fab Products in Hamilton have a remarkable commitment to this initiative. Twenty of these business champions aim to find 100 jobs for people with disabilities by the end of 1991.
The employment consortium evolved around this project is unique in Canada. Six sectors-employment, labour, service, consumer, education and resources-are identifying problems and opportunities, and co-ordinating existing federal, provincial and regional programs.
There are approximately 25,000 disabled job seekers in the Hamilton-Wentworth area. With the help of companies involved in Goal 100, many of these people will be able to leave the welfare ranks and join the employment ranks.
Congratulations to Hamilton business persons for their efforts in enabling disadvantaged individuals to become productive workers in today's and tomorrow's labour market.
Let them stand as examples to other employers-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's time has expired.


INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, Premier Bourassa deplores the accusations of favouring Quebec that circulated last week in the Commons following the announcement of an industrial development agreement between Quebec and Ottawa. He says that such charges are completely unjustified. From this September to next June, $2.9 billion will be given in agricultural assistance for the grains sector, mainly to the western provinces.
Mr. Bourassa pointed out that this will bring the total for this kind of aid since 1985 to $20 billion. "No paltry sum", said he.
For several months, the Conservative members from Quebec together with the Minister of National Health and Welfare have shown the Cabinet that Quebec is entitled to its share for economic recovery in that province.
The statements made last week by NDP members, a Liberal member from Newfoundland and the Reform Party in Ottawa are a lot of nonsense.


UKRAINE
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale -High Park):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, December 1, approximately 80 per cent of Ukrainians voted yes in a referendum which affirmed the Ukrainian Parliament's August 24 declaration of independence.
Over 6,000 Canadians of Ukrainian descent who live in my constituency of Parkdale-High Park call on the Canadian government to recognize Ukrainian independence today, and to begin establishing full diplomatic relations.
Mr. Kravchuk, on his recent visit to Canada, assured us that nuclear weapons in Ukraine will remain under the control of a collective interdependent defence alliance until they are fully dismantled. He said that his independent Ukraine will guarantee equal rights to Russians, Jews and other minority groups.
I recommend that the government bring in a resolution to this Chamber today recognizing Ukraine as the world's newest independent nation, representing 52 million people and Europe's fourth largest geographical area


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, there are many unsung heroes working diligently to promote the unity of Canada.
One of them is Jim Taylor of Toronto in his billboard campaign, now travelling through Atlantic Canada. He gained great support in my riding last Friday for his declaration: "My Canada includes Quebec".
December 2, 1991

Another is a group of singing and dancing students from Fredericton called "Characters Incorporated". Over the past several months, they have toured large parts of our country to inspire pride in Canada through their outstanding performances.
Along the way, they have collected an impressive tribute of signed commitments to Canada from many corner of the country. In due course, they will be presenting that tribute to Parliament through the Prime Minister.
These kinds of initiatives represent the power of public opinion. People do care about Canada, and purposes like these should be encouraged and supported at every stage in the constitutional cause. May every Canadian follow these examples.


UKRAINE
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing):: Mr. Speaker, over the weekend, the people of Ukraine made a historic decision. My colleague, the member for Edmonton East, who was in Ukraine as part of a Canadian delegation to observe the elections, confirmed this morning that the people of Ukraine have overwhelmingly chosen to chart their own destiny.
This decision is being celebrated not only in Ukraine but also by hundreds of thousands of sons and daughters of Ukraine who live here in Canada.
I urge the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs to make sure Canada is among the first countries to give official recognition to this most recent addition to the world community of independent nations.
Now is the ideal time for the cultural and economic links between our nations to be strengthened. I can think of no better way to celebrate the 100 years of Ukrainian settlement in Canada than by reaffirming the historic links between our countries today.
Today is a pivotal day for the people of Ukraine. Let us make sure that Canada is there to assist them in the challenges ahead.


NORTHERN TAX BENEFITS
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, last week on a tour of the Peace country, Preston Manning, leader of the Reform Party of Canada announced his party would abolish northern tax benefits.
For many years, many of his strongest supporters made themselves rich by taking the profits from our oil and gas fields home with them. Northern benefits have let the hard working people of the north keep just a few of those dollars at home.
I call on Preston Manning to stop listening to the guys with the bucks and help those without. The northern benefits puts money in the jeans of the men and women who toil in Canada's northern communities.
I will be contacting reeves, mayors, MLAs, MPs and other northern community leaders. Getting the northern tax benefit was only half the battle. Now the fight is to keep it.


EASTERN ONTARIO'S ECONOMY
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Maurice Lamoureux egg candling centre of St. Isidore closed its doors, with the loss of 34 jobs in my riding. It is the second time in a month that St. Isidore de Prescott, with a population of 500, has been hit in that way. This shutdown is in addition to several others in Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.
I take the opportunity today to repeat the request I made many times in this House. Eastern Ontario needs a regional development program to fight chronic unemployment in our area. My constituents and I are still waiting. They are waiting for a favorable response from this government.

Oral Questions


CHRISTMAS SEALS
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce details of the Canadian Lung Association's annual Christmas seal campaign.
The Lung Association, Canada's oldest national voluntary health organization, was formed in 1900. Although its early focus was with the prevention of tuberculosis, there are now other serious lung diseases that demand its attention. Deaths due to asthma have increased 163 per cent among people of the ages 15 to 34 since the early 1970s.
The Lung Association aims to improve these serious health conditions in Canada through research, education, patient services and the promotion of healthy living. The country-wide annual Christmas seal campaign represents the major financial support for the work of the association.
In London-Middlesex the Lung Association has helped 25,900 people: asthmatics, chronic lung disease, students smoking cessation program, a resource library, et cetera, with 180 volunteers. They would like to have more. Dedicated professionals such as Dr. Neville Lef-coe and others at Victoria Hospital are certainly working actively in this field.
The Lung Association of Canada has initiated the appreciation program for tobacco free pharmacies.


LEADER OF OFFICIAL OPPOSITION
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition made some statements about referendums. He suggested that a referendum be held on the same day that Quebec holds its referendum. He added that if English Canada said no in that referendum, the status quo would prevail. "We will have the Constitution that we have", he said.
A referendum is not a game. The Leader of the Opposition should stop annoying Quebecers unnecessarily. A referendum law is a way to break a deadlock, to use "in case". It is not to provoke Quebecers, much less to force them into something.
Furthermore, the Leader of the Opposition must understand one thing: You cannot hold a national referendum and if it fails pretend that nothing happened. There will be no third chance.


STANLEY KNOWLES
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, on November 30, 1942, the residents of Winnipeg North Centre sent Stanley Knowles to the House of Commons. He is still here and he deserves our congratulations and our appreciation.
As a young person growing up on the outskirts of Winnipeg, I knew very little of party politics, but I heard many people talking about Stanley: Stanley for decent pensions; Stanley for working people; Stanley for poor women; Stanley for the unemployed, disposessed, the forgotten of our society. Stanley Knowles was a symbol then. He is an institution now. He represented and still represents a philosophy of service, of dedication and of sacrifice to others. Stanley Knowles was defeated just once, but even during that break he continued to work for the cause of social justice. Now, as he starts his 50th year in Ottawa, we, along with many other Canadians, express our best wishes to Stanley Knowles, a true person of the people.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister.
Today, the premiers of New Brunswick, Ontario and Manitoba, who represent all three national political parties in Canada, came together to urge the federal government to stop ignoring the economy and to convene an immediate First Ministers' Conference on the economy.
December 2, 1991

Will the Prime Minister immediately convene a First Ministers' Conference on the economy as requested by these three First Ministers.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will be meeting with provincial finance ministers on December 12 and 13 for two days of intensive consultation precisely in regard to economic matters.
I have been holding bilateral meetings with first ministers, Premier Bourassa, Premier Rae. I will meet with Premier Romanow, Premier Harcourt, Premier Getty, and Premier Wells next week and will be making sure that during this cycle that we meet with all of the first ministers.
I will certainly be guided by their advice and be guided as well by the advice of the Minister of Finance after he meets with his provincial colleagues for two days of meetings and gives us a recommendation in regard to the usefulness and the effectiveness of such a meeting.
Therefore, I will be happy to report back to my hon. friend just as soon as these meetings are concluded. We will obviously do what is the best for Canada.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Today, Mr. Speaker, 650,000 men and women must count on food banks for their daily bread. These people cannot wait any longer. Last week, the Prime Minister had a meeting with the premier of Ontario, and after that meeting, the premier of Ontario asked for a conference. Doesn't the Prime Minister think it would be time to show that he is very concerned that in a country like Canada, these people have to go to food banks? Is it not time to give them some hope and get all the Premiers together to find a way out of the recession?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, of course I want to give them hope, but not false hopes. Today interest rates in Canada are dropping. The inflation rate is going down. The IMF and the OECD have indicated that next year, Canada will rank first among all major industrialized countries in terms of economic growth. These are encouraging signs, despite
Oral Questions
our current problems. I would say that a lot depends on expenditure control and borrowing at the provincial level.
Even if we do have a meeting, I intend to examine very carefully, with the premiers and in public, the growth rate of their expenditures and loans and compare it with the federal government's record. I think you will see that the federal government has shown strong leadership in this area, and if we can persuade the provinces to follow our example, the economic recovery already under way will be stronger and more durable.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the problem we have had with this government is that for the past two years it has told us that it was to be a very short-term recession. Now we are in the second year, virtually a complete second year. Some 145,000 people had to go to food banks in Toronto alone last month and almost half of them were children.
When will this government stop fighting inflation and look at the other side of the coin. People in Canada need jobs in order to stop going to food banks. When will this government stop fighting inflation and concentrate on finding jobs for people?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, may I remind the hon. Leader of the Opposition that 108,000 new jobs were created in the months of September and October. We have today the composite index from Statistics Canada which records the sixth consecutive increase in the outlook. That is a broad measurement of the economy. It takes into consideration some 10 different components, all the way from the stock market to furniture.
The other thing that should be noted is the fact that in the third quarter, while the growth was not as strong as we would have liked to have seen it, in the goods producing sector, there was a 5.2 per cent growth. I think that should be signs for encouragement, a 17.2 per cent increase in residential investment, the increase in jobs, the continuing reduction in interest rates, the continuing decline in inflation which will provide the lower income

Oral Questions
groups and the people on fixed incomes with that kind of security.
So it is not all gloom and doom. I think we are poised for a good rate of growth in 1992 as reflected by the projection of the IMF, the OECD, the Conference Board of Canada and others.


Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. October was yet another milestone for this government.

We now have a record number of bankruptcies and people who are obliged to use food banks. Among those who do, one out of five lost his or her job last year and has exhausted his or her unemployment insurance benefits.
Will the minister admit that his government's cuts in unemployment insurance have caused a transfer of this social burden to charitable organizations?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, obviously any bankruptcy is disturbing. We are, of course, concerned by the level of bankruptcies. The fact of the matter is with interest rates declining, the fact that it seems to have bottomed out, there are indications that we have seen the worst in terms of bankruptcies and we continue to look at some positive trends. The most positive trend is the continuing decline in interest rates.
I might say that this recession compared to 1981-82 in so far as bankruptcies makes this look very mild by comparison.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the same minister. When the Minister of Finance told the country to expect little improvement in the jobless rate for yet another year, thousands of Canadians were left to calculate how long they could hold out before declaring personal bankruptcy and join the crowd at their local food bank.
I ask the minister to announce that his government will no longer disown the unemployed and the poor and will now try to rescue the casualties of the Tory fiscal plague.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, 108,000 new jobs were created during the months of September and October. It is expected that over 300,000 new jobs will be generated in 1992. The combination of that without the increase in the labour force, the expansion of the labour force, would result in a 2 per cent decline in the unemployment rate.
However, because of the large participation rate that the Canadian work force is involved in, it becomes a much more difficult challenge. I remind the hon. member that in terms of participation, Canada has the highest participation rate in the labour force of any country in the industrialized world and so our challenges are therefore greater.
I repeat, we must get the fundamentals right if we are going to have sustainable growth with price stability. That means long term growth and secure jobs for the future.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Today Statistics Canada reports that in fact we do have a slowdown in the economy from last month. This simply confirms what millions of Canadians know, millions of Canadians for whom the recession is very far from over.
Often the finance minister has pointed to increases in corporate profits as an indication that the recession is over. I would ask the finance minister and the Prime Minister to look at the number of lay-offs this week alone, 139 jobs lost by Norsk Hydro; 2,000 lost jobs at IBM; 1,300 jobs at Town & Country Stores across the country; and CN bracing for more losses.
When will the Prime Minister begin to take into account the real victims of the recession, those who are without jobs and need to have some hope in the future, and put forth a plan to provide jobs for Canadians?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, the only way to secure long-term growth, prosperity and permanent jobs is to get at the fundamentals, the fundamentals of bringing down interest rates, bringing down inflation. Consolidating and managing the fiscal challenge is really the only way that we can hope to ever achieve the kind of long term growth and stability that the hon. member refers to.

I remind her that this government has helped in creating a climate that generated 1.6 million new jobs, the highest record of job creation of any country in the industrialized world. We have gone through a period of adjustment and retrenchment; we are going through that. As a matter of fact the Governor of the Bank of Canada today indicated in his speech the main point, and I quote: "What I wish to convey from this monetary policy perspective is that Canada is now much better placed to enjoy good economic"-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon. [Translation]


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
When this government is optimistic, it predicts that one Canadian out of ten will be unemployed next year. The government has no economic recovery plan for the
1.5	million Canadians who are unemployed and the 2 million who are on welfare. An economic policy that ensures that the banks make billions of dollars of profits while children go hungry is a policy that does not work.
I would like to ask the minister when this government will help the real victims of the recession, the unemployed.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party can help in this area as well. If we look at the September growth figures there was a decline of .1 per cent. I think everyone shares the view that if it had not been for the disruptive strikes that occurred we probably would have had positive growth in September.
The former premier of British Columbia should know that because of the strikes we lost a lot of grain deliveries. That certainly affected our export position and that affected our merchandise trade balance.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance will not convince one Canadian that the poor management of this government is any excuse. Employee relations by this government are so bad that it was not even able to deal with its own employees. I want to say that is not the cause of the recession. The cause of
Oral Questions
the recession is government's policies. I want to say to the Minister of Finance that a recovery which does not put people back to work is not a recovery.
The Minister of Finance told us last week that in his budget consultations he was hearing that he was on the right track. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance to whom was he speaking? Was he just speaking to the bankers who made all those profits? How about speaking to those three million people who are out of work and on social assistance and asking for answers from that group of people? Has he spoken to them?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to answer that question.
I have heard it from anti-poverty groups, from the Paraplegic Association and from NAC, the National Action Committee. I have heard it from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. I have heard it from the retailers. I have heard it from the farmers. I have heard it literally from a cross-section.


An hon. member:: What are you doing about it?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: What are we doing about it? The fact of the matter is that everyone knows we have a fiscal deficit problem we inherited from the previous administration that must be dealt with.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


UKRAINE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister.
We are pleased to recognize that the Prime Minister took the step this morning of recognizing the independence of Ukraine.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Lloyd Axworthy: I would like to ask the Prime Minister some questions to clarify the statement released by his office which says: "Canada will only open negotiations and will have to satisfy itself with respect to Ukraine's stated intentions on ensuring that nuclear weapons will remain under secure control that there will be compliance with existing arms control agreements" and so forth.

Oral Questions
It is our understanding that those assurances have already been given by the President of Ukraine, Mr. Kravchuk, in a letter to the Prime Minister this week. I want to ask the Prime Minister: What further conditions, what further assurances is the Prime Minister requiring before full embassy status is given to Kiev and the full diplomatic power of immigration and other negotiations are transferred to that post in Kiev?
Could the Prime Minister indicate what more it is that Canada is now looking for under these negotiations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, when we saw the results of the vote in Ukraine, the government decided to recognize Ukraine as an independent state. That we have done and we have announced.
It is not unusual, pursuant to such a decision, for a country to open negotiations with regard to the establishment of diplomatic relations. In this case which is quite unusual Canada will wish to be satisfied with respect, for example, to the question of nuclear weapons that will remain under secure control until they are disposed of.
Overnight a country has become a nuclear power with nuclear weapons on its territory. Obviously, in the interests of effective bilateral relationships and in the interests of security, we are going to want to assure ourselves of the security of those weapons. We want them destroyed and/or removed and placed under secure control. This is an entirely normal process which we are informed the leadership of the Ukraine welcomes.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I think it still begs the question as to whether this is an unqualified or qualified recognition. We would like to know what further assurances in addition to Mr. Kravchuk's letter the Prime Minister is looking for.
Furthermore, I think we all recognize that a newly independent country needs more than just recognition. It needs assistance for its economic security. It needs assurances on its own security, and particularly in the case of Ukraine this question of dismantling its nuclear weapons is very crucial.
We should all take account of the UN report released this morning saying that there could be major unrest in eastern Europe if there is not another Marshall Plan.
In addition to these negotiations about nuclear weapons, is Canada prepared to offer to Ukraine substantial new economic assistance and in particular respond to the request we made this morning that Canada help in the conversion of its nuclear warheads to peaceful purposes?


Martin Brian Mulroney: We do
not want the nuclear warheads converted. We want them done away with. That is what we want.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend asks two questions. On the first one the answer is contained in the first line of the statement: "Prime Minister Brian Mulroney today announced that Canada had decided to recognize Ukraine as an independent state". The recognition issue is resolved.
With regard to the second question raised in regard to future economic assistance and so on, in my meetings with President Kravchuk prior to to the election when he visited with me in Ottawa, I conveyed to him the view that after the election, and assuming certain results if that were the case, we would be dispatching senior public officials of the Government of Canada to meet with the officials of the newly elected government to deal precisely with the questions raised by my hon. friend.
The last line of the release deals precisely with that: "The Prime Minister confirmed that senior officials will be going to Kiev in the coming days to convey Canada's position and to begin the process of negotiations", which takes in as well the matters raise by my hon. friend.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Eighteen months ago, the government promised to do environmental assessments of all its policies. The green plan reinforced this promise.

So far, however, no comprehensive environmental assessment has been made of policies at the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister simply refuses to co-operate. Why?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the minister of energy is not in a position where he does not co-operate. He is co-operating.
On any issue that comes before cabinet through the regular documentation we have to satisfy and I as minister of energy I have to satisfy the environmental conditions. That is a condition of cabinet decision making. I am doing it.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
Energy policy is a critical indicator of a government's commitment to sustainable development. The minister's refusal, his cabinet's refusal to allow an environmental assessment of the government's energy policy, demonstrates not only a lack of concern for the environment but is poor economic policy as well.
The question is very clear. When will the government produce the environmental evaluation of his department's energy choices, an evaluation that was promised clearly and unequivocally 18 months ago?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, if there is any change in the policy position and if cabinet makes that decision, part of that decision-making process will be the environmental considerations. As we have said before that remains and no change has taken place.


INFORMANT PROGRAMS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and Deputy Prime Minister.
Most Canadians readily understand the need to compensate some individuals for the risks they take in providing information on drug smuggling, murder or
Oral Questions
conspiracy to the RCMP or the Security Intelligence Service. What is less clear is why Fisheries and Oceans, Environment Canada, and Revenue Canada are developing paid confidential informant programs.
My question for the Minister of Finance is: Would he explain why there are departments that are allowed to operate such programs without placing the costs in the estimates before Parliament, something the Minister of Finance is directly responsible for?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister of fisheries I can tell the House that I will be pleased to take my hon. friend's representations into account and report back to him as soon as possible.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance. The minister of fisheries is here, so the Solicitor General's response was not all that helpful.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Maybe we are going to have to start over. The hon. member for Skeena.


James Ross Fulton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The minister of fisheries has obviously had a very close shave.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of Finance, because this is an important auditing function that he handles. There are now at least five ministries on that side of the House involved in informant programs.
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether or not he would agree that rather than operating the bounty hunter programs which are now being operated by Fisheries, Revenue, and soon by Environment Canada, with secret bank accounts and secret telephone numbers, does he not think it would be better to set up some hot-lines where Canadians can advise the departments of illegal activities that they are aware of?
Will the minister assure this House that by the end of today he will table all the budgets of all the ministries on that side of the House that have informant programs?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, since the hon. member referred to the Main Estimates maybe I can be of some assistance.

Oral Questions
I would like to tell him that the payments that are made to individuals under the enforcement programs of various departments are considered to be operating expenses.
There is no separate line item in the estimates for that particular purpose, but the amounts are available as the hon. member knows very well because he was provided with the answers when he asked the question.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
As we prepare to mark the second anniversary of the tragedy at Ecole Polytechnique, the incidence of violence against women on Canadian campuses is on the increase. In particular the statistics on date rape are very frightening.
Will the Prime Minister convene a meeting of university presidents nation-wide to develop with them a concrete plan including education and enforcement policies to stop violence against women on Canadian campuses?


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but the Minister responsible for the Status of Women is away on government business today. I will certainly bring the matter to her attention on her return.
One knows and understands how hard she has worked to make all of us much more aware of the very debilitating effect of violence and harassment of women and how much we have to do.
In this particular week, as we come up to the commemoration of the second anniversary of the event, all of us will be thinking of the young women whose lives were snuffed out before their future even unfolded.
I am sure the minister responsible will be addressing herself to this subject on her return to the House.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer, but I posed my question then and I pose it again to the Prime Minister of Canada with this supplementary.

Is the Prime Minister prepared to promise financial support for Canadian universities so that they can develop policies to fight date rape?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member for Halifax must know that recently in Edmonton, I announced the funding of three university chairs to research violence against women. I do not think she meant what she said; I think that she is talking about co-operation between training centres, particularly at the university level. This was extremely well received by women's groups when I made the announcement in Edmonton because I think that it is a policy that will help determine-and I agree fully with the hon. member-exactly what must be done in Canadian society to find ways to fight violence against women. The same goes for all forms of violence against women and children; we have policies involving hundreds of millions of dollars as an expression of our commitment.
Again, I repeat that we have made commitments to women's groups. I personally announced the funding next year of three university chairs for violence against women. I think that shows the government's intention to do something in that area.


JUSTICE
David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Last night and tonight millions of Canadians are viewing an electrifying television documentary on the brutal slaying of Manitoba native Helen Betty Osborne.
Her death became the focus of the aboriginal justice inquiry of Manitoba which released its report last summer. This report made several recommendations for the federal government.
Why is the government delaying its response and ignoring the many ways through many departments that it can make justice a reality for Canada's aboriginal community?

Oral Questions


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the government is quite aware of the report to which my hon. friend refers.
In fact I met as well with the minister of justice of Manitoba to discuss the federal report. At the present time the recommendations in the report are being studied by the RCMP. I can assure my hon. friend that this is not a matter where we are delaying in any way.
We want to provide a thoughtful and thorough response to this very important inquiry.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister, the Solicitor General.
It is hard to believe that after three months and 150 recommendations on one of the most serious criminal issues and one of the most serious social issues in this country the minister cannot find one recommendation to start with.
When will this government begin to deal with these very serious problems?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I think the various efforts by the government to deal with this very serious problem have been alluded to today in previous answers.
I can assure my friend that the 150 recommendations are to be taken seriously. We are not in a mood to delay on this important issue. They are being taken seriously. The government will provide a response when the matter is brought forward.
We can only respond to the recommendations that are ours. It is a report made in the purview of the minister of justice of the province of Manitoba. Naturally we want to take instruction from that report and react to as many recommendations as we can.


MEDICARE
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of health.
The federal government's response on Thursday to the recommendations of the report of the standing committee on health has been disappointing, particularly at a time when Canadians are looking for strong reasons to remain as part of a federal Canada.
Could the minister tell the House why his government supports the recommendations of the Liberal and Conservative committee members for the wholesale renegotiation of medicare at a time when Canadians are saying very clearly that they want national medicare with national standards and they do not want Bill C-20 and the continued federal cutbacks to financing of medicare?


Some hon. members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: I listened to the whole question because I did not want to intervene too quickly, but I think that question goes right into the workings of the committee and I think it is out of order.


THE CONSTITUTION
David Bjornson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
Back since September in my community we have had a group of volunteers, 20-odd people who have been meeting, discussing and holding public forums on constitutional proposals.
In the last while the work plan of the joint House and Senate parliamentary committee has changed and there has been a creation of constitutional conferences.
I am wondering if the minister could tell the House the status of these constitutional conferences and what reflection it will have on the small community based committees.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Privy Council and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to indicate today that there will be five constitutional conferences on consecutive weekends in cities across Canada starting on January 17 in Halifax, sponsored by a number of independent institutes in the country: the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council, the Canada West Foundation, the C. D. Howe Institute, the Institute for Research into Public Policy and the Niagara Institute.
Those conferences will call together experts plus, through a process worked out with the institutes, an effective representation of the general public. That will allow us to continue the process of building consensus on improvements for the proposals brought forward and tabled by the Prime Minister in September.

December 2, 1991
Oral Questions
The fifth conference will be a concluding conference organized jointly by the Government of Canada and the five sponsoring institutes.
There had been talk, as the House will know, about a conference on aboriginal matters. I have had meetings with leaders of the four national aboriginal organizations. At the moment it is not their preference to proceed with a discussion on aboriginal issues, although that question is being discussed.


NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY
Mr. Ken Hughes (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The California Public Utilities Commission recently announced a decision which has the effect of abrogating long-term private contracts between Canadian natural gas producers on one hand and California consumers on the other. This would be very serious for our natural gas industry.
When will this minister respond to the strong and frequent representations from Alberta P.C. members of this House and take action to defend the interests of Canadian natural gas producers?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question.
This is a very serious issue. I would hope that all members of the House would join with the government in the actions that we plan to unveil tomorrow in Calgary. It is an issue that relates to the sanctity of contracts.
Natural gas has been provided to the California market. Since 1961 various administrations in this place have supported that type of export.
Tomorrow we will be joined by the province of Alberta, by the industry, and I hope by members on both sides of this House so that the sanctity of contracts remains and that the actions we propose tomorrow will be endorsed by this House.


ATLANTIC FISHERIES
Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-THnity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, in the House last week the parliamentary secretary to the minister of fisheries stated that his minister was aware of what the fishermen and plant workers were saying regarding the inadequacy of the Atlantic Fisheries Catch Failure Program in which people who have been involved in the fisheries all their lives have not been able to qualify, or if they qualify there is no funding for the program.
If the minister is aware of this, I would like to ask him what he is going to do about it and when.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, it is my information that everyone in the areas affected who has a relationship to the fishery in accordance with the rules that were laid down is being looked after in this program. If there are any who have been missed, they can be included once they provide the information that shows they have a reasonable attachment to the fishery.
There is no problem with respect to money. The difficulty is that there are a fairly sizeable number of people without any reasonable attachment to the fishery who also have not qualified for unemployment insurance or who in the next month or two are coming off the unemployment insurance program and will then be looking for assistance. That is where the difficulty comes from.
Those with a reasonable attachment to the fishery, I believe have been looked after.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, last week at the same time in response to a question the Prime Minister said that the $39 million, he claimed, provided for Newfoundland was not enough. In fact the $39 million was for three provinces. So Newfoundland and Labrador got considerably less than that.
Anyway the Prime Minister said: "That is not enough for Newfoundlanders". The Prime Minister knows that there are some inadequacies in the program and the minister knows there are some inadequacies in the program despite what he just said.
December 2, 1991

Could I call on the Prime Minister to order his minister of fisheries to come to the aid of Newfoundland plant workers and fishermen who need more money, to provide programs for them that they badly need and rightly deserve?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this program, this program has provided funds to assist fishermen affected by catch failure wherever they were in Atlantic Canada, including Nova Scotia. The lion's share, if we might call it that, of the assistance has gone to Newfoundland and Labrador because this was the main area of catch failure.
For example, in connection with funding provided for
14.000	additional tonnes of herring to be purchased to give more work to fishermen and fish plant workers,
10.000	tonnes of that was allocated to Newfoundland and
4.000	to Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. We are trying to be as fair as we can be.
The Prime Minister of course is heavily in favour of assistance to anyone living anywhere in Canada where there is a demonstrated need, as the actions of the government have shown.


LAND CLAIMS
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):: [Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. For 50 years the Lubicon Lake Indian band has been trying to settle its land claims. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has said he is committed to resolving this claim.
Why then have there been no negotiations with the Lubicon Cree since 1989, and can the Prime Minister explain why the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development created and funded last year a new band in the area claimed by the Lubicon band?


Hon. Shirley Martin (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's ongoing concern on this particular issue, just as the Minister of
Oral Questions
Indian Affairs and Northern Development also has a concern.
We have been working with the bands to try to reach an agreement on this.


Mr. Kilgour:: Baloney.


Shirley Martin: We are ready to sit down with them when they are ready to come back to the table and we will follow up on this.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member for Edmonton Southeast would apologize to the hon. minister for shouting out comments in the middle of her answer.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the minister, but I do not think her answer was very candid.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think that that is any apology at all. This is the very thing where we are getting into difficulty. I have asked the hon. member to withdraw unequivocally.


David Kilgour: I am not going to go beyond that. I have apologized.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member rise to his feet and let me know what he is saying? I cannot hear him otherwise.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I am familiar with the Lubicon file too and I think that the question was fair. I do not think the answer was a fair response.


Mr. Speaker:: I think the hon. member's intervention is completely improper.


David Kilgour: I agree it was a bit strong.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member to make it quite clear, at least to the Chair, that the intervention was improper and that it is withdrawn.


David Kilgour: Out of my great respect for you, Mr. Speaker, I will agree that my comment was a bit strong. If it offended you then I apologize.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Charles Joseph Clark: Withdraw.


Jack Iyerak Anawak: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
An order to create another new band, the Loon Lake band in the northern part of the land claimed by the Lubicon band, is apparently in the office of the Minister

Point of Order
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development awaiting his signature.
In order to demonstrate this government's commitment to a fair settlement with the Lubicon band, will the Prime Minister today order the minister not to sign this order and to resume negotiations with the Lubicon people immediately?


Shirley Martin: Mr. Speaker, I rise again, I hope uninterrupted this time, to say that this government-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has intervened. I would ask the hon. minister to put as clear an answer as is possible without getting into undue argument.


Shirley Martin: As I mentioned earlier, I know the member's very true concern about the particular issue. I will take his last question back to the minister of Indian affairs if he returns tomorrow and discuss it with him.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and concerns funding for the national AIDS strategy. As the minister knows we have been celebrating World AIDS Day and attempting to deal with this issue in a more constructive way.
The minister will know of the excellent work of AIDS support groups across Canada and will know that funding for these groups under ACAP was cut from was cut from $7 million to $6.4 million for 1991.
I wonder if the minister can confirm today that this $600,000 will be reinstated forthwith so that these AIDS support groups can continue with their critically important work.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I share the views of the member about the World AIDS Day yesterday. I believe that all Canadians have to be concerned about this terrible disease.
Concerning ACAP, I said to the committee when I appeared on October 30 that I was looking at the possibility of reallocating money already devoted to that file and that if there was a possibility of doing that for
19911 would, for this year. However, I can confirm that for 1992-1993 the budget will be $7 million.


Chris Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, also as the minister knows, across Canada there are considerable inconsistencies in the treatment of AIDS and its availability and the cost of prescription drugs.
I wonder if the minister can indicate what steps he is taking to eliminate these inconsistencies so that those persons living with AIDS in Canada can receive the same accessibility to medical treatment no matter where they live.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, we are trying to work with the provinces on that kind of file. The member knows very well that prescription drugs are determined by the provinces. They make those decisions.
The health care system is made in a way that we can provide as much as we can. As I was told in Europe recently, we have the best health care system in the world. For that reason we are trying to provide the same service all across the country, but of course there are problems in the kind of treatment and the kind of prescription drugs. For example, the problem is not the same in Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal as it is in any other province. That is why once again we are working with the provinces.
I believe the question is well put. It should be dealt with in that way by those provinces.


CROATIA
Mr. Garth TUrner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, continued bloodshed in Croatia is unacceptable to my constituents and my question regarding this is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could she please tell this House the status of efforts to put a UN peacekeeping force into Yugoslavia to control the Serbian army, and will Canada commit troops to help protect Croatia?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has been in the forefront of this issue from the beginning, particularly in urging the Security Council and the United Nations to become engaged in stopping the violence.
December 2, 1991

We will indeed put peacekeeping troops into the area. Mr. Vance, representing the Secretary-General, is in Belgrade now and his assistant is in Zagreb. We are in constant touch with the United Nations and with Mr. Vance. I spoke to him just before he left and told him at that point that Canada would be part of a peacekeeping effort, as the Prime Minister had said publicly and as we had urged the Security Council to take on. There will have to be another resolution at the Security Council I understand when Mr. Vance returns. We are in touch with our people at the UN as well as through our posts in all the Security Council countries to urge them to establish this so that we can get started.


Mr. Speaker:: The time for Question Period has expired.
 * *


PRESENCE IN THE GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I want to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Gordon Wilson, MLA, Leader of the Official Opposition in the Legislative Assembly of the Province of British Columbia.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


POINT OF ORDER
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period a supplementary answer was given by the President of the Treasury Board. I would certainly hope he will now table those figures. He indicated that I had the figures for informant programs run by at least five government ministries. I do not have those figures and they are not publicly available.
I would hope that the President of the Treasury Board will either correct the record or will in fact table those figures today.


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of clarification.
During Question Period the hon. member for Skeena alluded to such a program being in place. In his wording he could have left the impression that such a program was now in place in Environment Canada.
Just for the record I want to make it clear that no such program is now in place in Environment Canada.
Government Orders QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg TVanscona):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment on a point of order arising out of Question Period. It has to do with the question of the hon. member for Surrey being ruled out of order.
The member was asking a question about the government's response to a committee report tabled in this House. This report therefore is no longer the property of the committee but is something of which the House has been seized. He was asking the government a question about its particular response to that particular report. In the course of it he referred to Bill C-20 which is being debated in the House today. But the main point of the question had to do with the government's response to a committee report.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, I fail to understand why it was out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I could be incorrect but as I heard the question it seemed to me that it was going into the committee and in any event it seemed to be anticipating the Orders of the Day.
While there may be differences of opinion on it, that was my call. If I was in error then I can only express to the hon. member my regret. Perhaps the matter could be raised in another way at another time.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-20, an act to amend certain statutes to implement the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 1991, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred divisions on the motions at report stage of Bill C-20, an act to amend certain statutes to implement the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 1991, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance.

Government Orders


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare Motion No. 1 lost. Therefore, Motion No. 2 is negatived.


Mr. Gagliano:: Mr. Speaker, I believe you will find there is unanimous consent for applying the results of the vote that was just taken to Motion No. 3 and the vote on Motion No. 4 to Motions Nos. 5 and 6.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The list we have would indicate it is Motions Nos. 3 and 4. They are not on the Order Paper because they were done by unanimous consent earlier this day. I just want to make sure that these are the last two votes, at any rate, in terms of amendments to this bill.


Mr. Nowlan:: On the same point of order, I do not want to impede but I did not vote either for or against because I did not have the amendment before me and I really was not sure what the devil I was voting on. If it is to implement the budget in a general way, then perhaps I would be able to take a position. I would like to agree to the other amendments if I knew what they were. I did not vote the first time because I did not have the amendment and I did not know what I would be voting on. If you could tell me what the vote is, what the amendments are, then I will go along with a vote.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Motion No. 3 of the member for Essex-Windsor moved that Bill C-20 be amended by deleting clause 7. Motion No. 4 of the member for Essex-Windsor moved that Bill C-20 be amended by deleting clause 8.

Government Orders

The next question is on motion No. 3.
The House divided on the Motion No. 3, which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 89)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Anawak
Arseneault	Assad
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)	Barrett
Belair	Bellemare
Benjamin	Berger
Bevilacqua	Black
Blackburn (Brant)	Blaikie
Boudria	Breaugh
Catterall	Chretien
Clancy	Copps
Crawford	Dingwall
Duhamel	Edmonston
Flis	Foster
Fulton	Gagliano
Gardiner	Gauthier
Gray (Windsor West)	Hopkins
Hovdebo	Hunter
Kaplan	Karpoff
Keyes	Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	MacLaren
Manley	Marchi
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	McCurdy
Mifflin	Mitchell
Murphy	Prud'homme
Robinson	Rocheleau
Samson	S kelly (Comox-Albemi)
Taylor	Tobin
Venne Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-57	Young (Acadie-Bathurst)
++NAYS
Members
Anderson	Andre
Atkinson	Attewell
Beatty	Bjornson
Blenkarn	Bouchard (Roberval)
Brightwell	Cardiff
Champagne (Champlain)	Charest
Clark (Yellowhead)	Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Clifford	Cole
Cooper	Corbeil
Corbett	Cote
Couture	Crosbie (St. John's West)
de Cotret	Della Noce
Desjardins	Duplessis
Edwards	Epp
Ferland	Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Greene	Guilbault
Halliday	Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hawkes	Hockin
Hogue	Hudon
James	Johnson
Joncas	Kempling
Koury	Landry
Lewis	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Marin	Martin (Lincoln)
McCreath	McDermid
McDougall (St. Paul's)	McKnight
McLean	Merrithew
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Plourde
Pronovost	Redway
Ricard	Richardson
Robitaille	Roy-Arcelin
Saint-Julien	Schneider
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)	Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow
Tremblay (Lotbiniere) Valcourt Vankoughnet Weiner
Winegard-85
Stevenson
Timer (Halton-Peel)
Van De Walle Vincent
Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost. The next question is on Motion No. 4, which will dispose of Motions Nos. 5 and 6.
The House divided on the Motion No. 4, which was negatived on the following division.
(Division No. 90)
++YEAS
Members
Allmand	Anawak
Arseneault	Assad
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) Barrett	
Belair	Bellemare
Benjamin	Berger
Bevilacqua	Black
Blackburn (Brant)	Blaikie
Boudria	Breaugh
Catterall	Chretien
Clancy	Copps
Crawford	Dingwall
Duhamel	Edmonston
Flis	Foster
Fulton	Gagliano
Gardiner	Gauthier
Gray (Windsor West)	Hopkins
Hovdebo	Hunter
Kaplan	Karpoff
Keyes	Langdon (Essex-Windsor)
MacDonald (Dartmouth)	MacLaren
Manley	Marchi
Martin (Lasalle-Emard)	McCurdy
Mifflin	Mitchell
Murphy	Prud'homme
Robinson	Rocheleau
Samson	Skelly (Comox-Albemi)
Taylor	Tobin
Venne	Young (Acadie-Bathurst)
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-57 Anderson	NAYS Members Andre
Atkinson	Attewell
Beatty	Bjornson
Blenkarn	Bouchard (Roberval)
Brightwell	Cardiff

December 2, 1991
Routine Proceedings
Champagne (Champlain)	Charest
Clark (Yellowhead)	Clark (Brandon-Souris)
Clifford	Cole
Cooper	Corbeil
Corbett	Cote
Couture	Crosbie (St. John's West)
de Cotret	Della Noce
Desjardins	Duplessis
Edwards	Epp
Ferland	Gray (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine)
Greene	Guilbault
Halliday	Harvey (Chicoutimi)
Hawkes	Hockin
Hogue	Hudon
James	Johnson
Joncas	Kempling
Koury	Landry
Lewis	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDougall (Timiskaming)
Marin	Martin (Lincoln)
McCreath	McDermid
McDougall (St. Paul's)	McKnight
McLean	Merrithew
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	Plourde
Pronovost	Redway
Ricard	Richardson
Robitaille	Roy-Arcelin
Saint-Julien	Schneider
Scott (Victoria-Haliburton)	Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Sobeski	Soetens
Sparrow	Stevenson
Tremblay (Lotbiniere)	Tbrner (Halton-Peel)
Valcourt	Van De WaUe
Vankoughnet	Vincent
Weiner	Wilson (Etobicoke Centre)
Winegard-85



[Stage Direction]
nil/aucun
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I declare the motion lost. Therefore, Motions Nos. 5 and 6 are negatived.


Hon. Harvie Andre (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-20, an act to amend certain statutes to implement the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 1991, be concurred in as amended.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: When shall the bill be read the third time? At the next sitting of the House.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I believe that should have been "by leave now" we would proceed with third reading of the bill.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Oshawa.


Michael James Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could assist me. Is it in order for members to argue against a motion when it is being debated and then to vote for it?



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 15 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-45, an act to promote public safety in the transportation of dangerous goods.


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


Jean Corbeil: that the bill be read the first time and printed.
Pursuant to Standing 69(1), the motion is deemed adopted.
Bill read the first time and printed.

December 2, 1991


PETITIONS
Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to table a petition from residents of my riding and other areas of metropolitan Toronto urging the minister of immigration to issue minister's permits for spouses and dependent children of persons who have been determined to be convention refugees and allow these families to be reunited in Canada for inland processing.
If this were done, we would limit tragic situations such as the four Gunajothy children between the ages of 5 and 12 who have been waiting for three years in a hotel room in Colombo in terror, without a permanent care giver, while their parents achieved refugee status and were landed last June.
It is six months now that they have been sponsored and they have not even received medical instructions. These children will be Canadian citizens and they will remember their years of fear, loneliness and waiting.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of Sydenham, South Mountain, Joyceville and Plantagenet.

These petitioners oppose the government's possible change in article XI of the GAIT, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. They call upon the government to hold the Canadian system up as an example to the world and to protect it in its entirety from any change as a result of the current negotiations and urge the government to show some backbone for a change and support Canadian farmers in those negotiations.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
Routine Proceedings
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: No 117 and No. 141.


Mr. Vanclief: With respect to certificates sent to commemorate Canadian participation in the war in the Persian Gulf (a) how many were printed (ib) how many were mailed (c) what was the per unit cost of printing (d) who did the printing (e) what were the total mailing costs (f) what was the cost of (i) designing the certificates (ii) stuffing the envelopes (iii) assembling the list of recipients?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: (a)
1,600
(b)	700
(c)	$1.75 per certificate
(d)	Department of Supply and Services
(e)	Approximately $300. Most were one package with multiple certificates enclosed.
(f)	(i) Approximately 1.5 hours were spent by DND personnel as a part of their normal duties.
(ii)	Approximately 2 hours were spent by DND personnel as a part of their normal duties.
(iii)	Approximately 3 hours were spent by DND personnel as a part of their normal duties.


Mrs. Campbell (South West Nova): With respect to the $36 million naval reserve base that is planned for Pointe-S-Carcy, Quebec, what is (a) the number of trainees it is expected to handle (b) the number of full-time military and civilian employees it will have (c) the number and type of new facilities that will have to be built to complete it (d) the expected annual operating budget?


Marcel Masse: The naval reserve facility at Pointe-a-Carcy, Quebec, will house three organizations: The Naval Reserve Headquarters, HMCS Montcalm and the Canadian Forces Fleet School Quebec.
(a)	Canadian Forces Fleet School Quebec and HMCS Montcalm are expected to handle up to 1,500 trainees a year.

December 2, 1991
Government Orders
(b)	The permanent staff, both militaiy and civilian, for all three organizations will number 130 personnel. (Note that 67 personnel with the naval reserve headquarters have been located at 94 Dalhousie since 1988).
(c)	The naval reserve facility will consist of three buildings:
(1)	A new quarters building will be built on Dalhousie Street to house the residence and the messes;
(2)	The existing Hanger 19 will be extended and renovated as the Training building and will house HMCS Montcalm and the Canadian Forces Fleet School Quebec training resources; and
(3)	The John Munn building at 112 Dalhousie Street will be renovated as office space for CFFSQ and NAVRES HQ administration offices.
(d)	The projected recurring maintenance and operating costs of the three buildings are estimated at $2,269,000 a year, including $533,000 for equipment operating costs and $1,736,000 for facilities/services (budget year 1996-97).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker,
I gave notice to the Speaker's office on Thursday and I rose in the House on Friday on a point of privilege and informed the member for Sudbury who in Hansard on page 5508, November 28, made allegations against myself, my family, and my riding.
I would like today, and unfortunately the member for Sudbury is not here, to refer to you in a statement-


Mr. Dingwall:: Point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member opposite is indeed quite correct that he did stand in his place on Friday and give notice to the Speaker that he intended to raise a point of privilege which he believes has affected him in his responsibilities as a member of Parliament.
Through the Chair perhaps I may say to the hon. member that the member he is referring to can and will be made available tomorrow morning. Perhaps at that time the hon. member would want to raise his substantive point at that time. I think there has been some difficulty with respect to transportation to and from the constituency. If the hon. member would care to wait, the hon. member could be here tomorrow and I am sure the matter could be argued in its complete context.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to wait but I would like to comment that it has been a very difficult four days for myself and my family and for my constituents when allegations like this are made.


An hon. member:: Well, go ahead.


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: I would like to ensure that the member is here so that she can really deal first hand with what she has said and the difficulty it has caused for me and my family.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I believe we can give the undertaking that the hon. member will be here tomorrow to debate and add her particular intervention to the suggestion made by the hon. member.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The Chair has noted the comments made by hon. members and appreciates the courtesy shown by the hon. member for Timiskaming.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Horton McDermid: that Bill C-20, an act to amend certain statutes to implement the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 1991, be read the third time and passed.
December 2, 1991

Government Orders
He said: I rise today to speak on third reading of Bill C-20. As everyone knows, this bill implements the measures announced in the February 1991 budget by the then minister of finance.
Bill C-20 implements several spending restraint and deficit control measures. It affects the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangement Act, the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Before I discuss the details of the bill let me, at the outset thank all those who participated on the committee for their work, their suggestions and their useful comments.
I listened this morning very carefully to the comments of my colleagues from both opposition parties. The legislation should be understood in the broad context of the government's over-all economic agenda. Measures proposed in the February budget set out in the plan for economic recovery are essential to restore strong, continuing growth that leads to the renewed prosperity that Canadians want.
The key to recovery is lower interest rates. It requires reduction in expectations and in inflation. Part of this comes from putting government finances firmly on course to a balanced budget and by restraining the operations of government. The budget plans for economic recovery support these goals through further tough discipline and government spending, deficit reduction and control of the government's operating costs.
The Minister of Finance today in Question Period mentioned that he is in the process of having pre-budget consultations with the broadest cross section of people in our country from all walks of life. I shared those pre-budget consultations with him last week in Toronto and they were represented by many groups.
All of those groups are experiencing in most instances financial problems at this period of time as they come through a recession. They sent one message loud and clear from those consultations and that was to stick to what we are doing, we are on the right track and we will be proven right. Interest rates are coming down and inflation is down at an annualized rate now that is beyond the goals that were set by the Government of Canada.
They said that we are on the right track. For heaven's sake do not backtrack. That came loud and clear. There were other suggestions from many of the groups which made representations on how we can improve the situation economically. There were suggestions for the upcoming 1992 spring budget, but generally that was the theme that came through loud and clear.
This bill talks to those policies we are implementing to ensure that we stay on the right track and to ensure that the young people coming behind us are not going to be paying all our bills. We will start making a dent in that huge debt that has been built up over a number years.
The measures before us today have important implications for federal-provincial fiscal arrangements and in particular the major transfers to two provinces.
I listened today to some figures that were thrown out by the opposition parties. I am not sure where they got the figures or what inflation rate they were basing then-figures on. We heard a wide range of figures thrown around today all of which are hypothetical and all of which are added or subtracted. They are primarily added or embellished on by the opposition. We are not sure where the accuracy of them can be found.
Today the federal government provides about $37 billion in financial support to provincial governments. There are three major transfer programs. The Established Programs Financing or EPF, equalization and the Canada Assistance Plan referred to as CAP. They account for over 90 per cent of all federal transfers to provinces or more than $34 billion for 1991-92.
That is a lot of money. That is about 20 or 25 per cent of the program spending that goes to the provinces. Bill C-20 which we are debating in third reading helps to bring the growth of federal-provincial transfers into line. I emphasize that it is the growth, not reductions, of these transfers that is being brought into line with the current fiscal realities by introducing limits to the growth of payments under the EPF. I think it is very important to understand that they continue to grow, maybe not at the rate the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party or even the Conservative Party would like to see. It is especially not at the rate the provinces would like to see but within the fiscal realities that we are dealing with we believe they are realistic.

Government Orders
It is important to note that the government has not touched equalization. Transfers under this program to the less wealthy provinces have been exempted from the budget expenditure controls. Even with the measures proposed in the budget, growth in federal transfers is expected to run at 3.7 per cent annually between 1991-92 and 1995-96. That will be more than the rate of inflation during that period of time if our goals are reached and we believe they will be reached. This is in contrast to three per cent for all federal programs over the same period.
Bill C-20 brings the growth of federal-provincial transfers into line with these current fiscal realities which are much different than they were in the 1960s and the 1970s when our major transfer programs took their present form. Times change. The economy changes and situations change. The federal government has already announced and has started consultations with the provinces and Canadians generally on the reform of the major transfer system. The provinces have requested this. They want to assure funding as well. They are concerned about the system and we want to take a major look at that system. It has been guided by the principles that the new transfer system must be affordable.
It must protect provinces with lesser financial means. It must maintain the vital national public services expected by Canadians while providing accountability to the public.
The fearmongering that has been going on this morning by the New Democratic Party I think is totally unfair and unfounded. There has been screaming and moaning and groaning about our medicare system and how those nasty Tories want to do away with it. What utter nonsense. What poppycock. What socialist baloney. That is absolute nonsense. We have as much concern about the medicare system as anyone does.


An hon. member:: We want to bring it into the 21st century.


John Horton McDermid: That is exactly what we want to do. We want to assure that services are provided and that they are affordable. That is what it is all about.
For the New Democratic Party to say that this government is not concerned about medicare is totally false. It is absolutely totally false.


An hon. member:: Why are you destroying it?


John Horton McDermid: They were standing up not too long ago blaming the provinces for not spending the money on medicare that they get from the federal government.
That says to me that the federal government is giving the money and the provinces are not spending it on medicare. You cannot have it both ways. You cannot say that we are destroying the medicare system when the provinces are not spending the money they get for medicare on medicare. You cannot have it both ways over there. You just cannot do it. I will not buy the nonsense which is handed out to the Canadian public because it is just not true and the hon. member knows it.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During Question Period today the Speaker took a member of the Liberal Party severely to task for suggesting that something the minister had said was baloney.
This minister has just used precisely the same phrase with reference to comments which my hon. friend from Vancouver has stated. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to ask the minister to withdraw the comment in consistency with the normal parliamentary language which the Speaker has laid out during Question Period today.


John Horton McDermid: I am going to continue with my speech. I was talking about socialist baloney. I did not accuse any individual member of it. I talked about socialist baloney. There is nothing wrong with it.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I am quite prepared to have a vigorous debate with the minister about the values of this particular piece of legislation.
I have asked you for a ruling on it. It does seem to me that if a word is inadmissible according to the Speaker when it comes from the opposition surely that same word when it comes from the government is also inadmissible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I believe that when the Speaker intervened earlier during today's sitting, it was to remind a member who apparently had interrupted several times. It was because of his behaviour, not because of the term he used, that the Speaker called the

House to order. That is why I would prefer to let the debate proceed and again recognize the Minister of State for Finance and Privatization.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to limit debate in this House and that, of course, is what we are doing. Is that not right?
My hon. friend from Kingston and the Islands is sitting there agreeing with me most vociferously, and I appreciate that very much.
In carrying on I want to talk about the bill which is before us which amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to extend the February 1990 budget's per capita freeze on EPF transfers for a further three years to 1994-95.
However, it has no effect on transfers in the current fiscal year or the next. EPF transfers will continue to grow with population increases in each province. This is the largest single transfer program that the federal government has. It transfers $20 billion in 1991-92 to the provinces. It is provided to all provinces on an equal per capita basis and increases annually with each province's population.
Historically these transfers were made to help the provinces in the area of health care and post-secondary education. However, provinces are able to use these transfers according to their own priorities. That was a decision that was made, as hon. members pointed out today back, I believe, in 1977.
There are a great number of university presidents. There are a great number of those in the health care system who accuse the provinces of not in fact applying the money to those areas for which they were intended. If we go back to that type of thing, I am sure that will be one of the things that will be studied between the provinces and the federal government.
There, of course, has to be an accounting system, a check, and so on and so forth on that type of thing. I believe that when it was changed in 1977 it was done for a very good reason. Because they are examining the transfers, the methods of transfers, tax points versus cash, et cetera, that will be one of the things that will be looked at.
Government Orders
To the critics of the extension of the EPF freeze I want to say this, Mr. Speaker. For decades the Government of Canada has provided large and growing financial support to the provinces. As a matter of fact, while deficits were going up federally some of the provincial governments were balancing out their budgets on what they received from the federal government. I think that is fair to say.
Almost $37 billion in federal transfers are now simply too large to exempt from our expenditure restraint program. If 25 per cent or 30 per cent of your budget is going to the provinces in the form of these transfer payments then they are part of the expense problem of the federal government.
If in fact they are part of the problem, then they have to be part of the solution. I think that goes without saying.
In working to get down our deficit, we have to control these transfers to the provinces in a realistic way. So the transfers are affected. I think many people would agree with that.
I listened to my colleagues from the NDP again today complaining that medicare money was going to fix roads, and for uses by provincial governments other than for what they were intended. That was the claim made today. I have heard that many times from people across this country who are concerned about transfers to the provinces.
If that is the case and if the federal government has to rein in its expenditures, if the Canadian people, the constituents in Brampton, the constituents in Don Mills, the constituents that I meet everywhere, are saying that we have to cut back on expenditures and 30 per cent of expenditures are transfers to the provinces, then they must participate.
At the same time the provinces should cut back on their expenditures as well. They have many areas where they can cut back which would not detrimentally affect medicare or would not detrimentally affect post-secondary education.
They too have a responsibility for trimming the fat from their operations. To give provinces credit, I believe that in the last couple of years most of the provincial governments have realized that and have done that. They have made some tough decisions as well and have started to cut back.

December 2, 1991
Government Orders
I am concerned about my province of Ontario. I am very concerned about the way it is increasing deficit spending and the problem it is in today. I am very concerned about that. While other provinces are toeing the line, it is giving huge pay increases. At a time when everybody else is toeing the line it is spending money in areas that are questionable. It could trim a lot of fat out of its government as well.
When all other provincial governments are going in one direction, the government of Ontario seems to be going in the opposite direction. I believe it is working at cross purposes for what is trying to be attempted right across this country. We are concerned about that.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: You should be.


John Horton McDermid: Thank you. My friend from Kingston and the Islands says we should be concerned about it because they are as well. I understand that.
When meeting with the finance ministers from across Canada, they realize that the deficit is a national problem. They understand that fully. It is not just a federal problem, it is a national problem and all governments must participate in a solution.
We had a meeting the other day with the minister of finance for the province of Ontario and even he is now looking for areas to cut back on. He is privatizing too, which is interesting. An NDP government, a socialist government, is privatizing as well, looking for areas it could sell. I understood it sold the dome the other day.


An hon. member:: It gave it away.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: What would you do?


John Horton McDermid: We have the NDP arguing with the Liberals now on this. Maybe I should just sit back and let them go at one another over there. It is wonderful.
As I pointed out, major transfers to the provinces, including both cash and tax transfers will grow on an average of 3.7 per cent per year from 1991-1992 to 1995-1996 and all federal programs will grow by 3.4 per cent.
Let me just point out that these figures have to get on the record because all we hear about are cuts and cutbacks and so on. I want these figures on the record. The equalization payments in 1984-1985 were $14,568,000,000. In 1992-1993, the fiscal year we are
coming into, they will be $20,620,000,000, that is from $14.5 billion to $20.6 billion.
In equalization payments it has gone from $5.5 billion to somewhat over $9 billion in that period. The Canada Assistance Plan has gone from $4 billion to $6.6 billion. Other transfers have gone from $2.1 billion to $3 billion. Total transfers have grown from $25.6 to $38.1, that is $38,100,000,000 in 1992-1993. That does not sound like cuts or cutbacks. That sounds like increases and it has been increases. We are limiting those increases to ensure there is a discipline both at the federal and provincial government levels to budget and spend wisely. That is what the people have been telling us in no uncertain terms we should be doing.
I want to talk about provincial health standards for a minute if I can. We heard a lot about that this morning.
Bill C-20 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act with respect to the Canada Health Act.
Currently the federal government can withhold equalization payments from any province which does not comply with national health care standards set out in the Canada Health Act regarding comprehensiveness, accessibility, universality, portability and public administration.
Some have raised a concern that as the growth of the transfers under the EPF is limited, the ability of the federal government to continue enforcing the act might come into question.
Bill C-20 ensures that provinces continue to comply with the Canada Health Act by allowing the federal government for purposes of enforcement to withhold funding, other than EPF cash transfers, to provinces. This action will strengthen the government's ability to uphold the conditions and criteria which govern the national medicare system.
Allow me to comment on the alleged vulnerability of this provision to a court challenge. The government has received legal advice indicating that the federal spending power is upheld by the Supreme Court recently in the CAP reference decision and it allows the government to attach conditions to the moneys it transfers to the provinces. These conditions can touch on areas in which the government would not otherwise be able to legislate.
December 2, 1991

My hon. friend from Timmins commented today that Bill C-20 amends the Unemployment Insurance Act, provides for increases in UI premiums to ensure the health and stability of the unemployment insurance program. This action will avoid the need for much higher increases later to bring the UI account back into balance. It will also prevent debt problems from building up in the UI fund.
Premium rates were set in 1989 for a three year period beginning in 1980 on the basis of economic conditions expected at that time. Economic and labour market conditions have, however, deteriorated greatly, we all know that. Under the old rate of contributions, the unemployment insurance fund would move from a surplus at the end of 1990 to a deficit of $6 billion by the end of 1992 because of higher than expected benefit payments.
This would seriously jeopardize the financial integrity of this self-financed program and damage the federal government's fiscal position. An accumulation of debt in the UI account has the same effects as the build up of other federal debts. We have seen the consequences of borrowing today and imposing a burden on the future. God knows we are dealing with that now and it is difficult to do.
Responsible stewardship requires that we take the necessary steps to ensure the UI fund remains self-financing. I know we are all getting representations on the UI payments and how difficult they are but it reminds me of the old commercial we saw on television not too long ago: "You can pay me now or you can pay me later." The trouble with paying later is that debt grows larger and larger and you pay more and more.
People have told us all along that we should pay as we go. Some people are suggesting legislation forcing a government to have a balanced budget every three years. That would be an interesting piece of legislation and more interesting to try and make it work, especially in this period when we have such a huge debt, but that is what we are heading toward. We are heading toward a budget in which by 1995 we will no longer be borrowing from the public and will be able to start paying back some of the debt that this government and other governments have accumulated over the last number of years.
Another act that is amended by Bill C-20 is the Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act. This act provides for
Government Orders
the transfer to the provinces of 95 per cent of the federal income tax collected from privately owned electric and gas utilities. These were frozen in the 1990 budget, and given the current economic circumstances, the government cannot afford to resume increasing payments under this program and so this freeze is being extended a further four years.
In times of economic difficulty, Canadians expect the government and its officials to bear their share of restraint and in particular politicians must demonstrate leadership and resolve in helping the country through this difficult period.
Bill C-20 originally sought to restrain the salaries of members of Parliament and senators as promised in the February budget. However, these measures were implemented by Bill C-29 and the clauses dealing with the issue have been deleted in committee. Members of Parliament, senators, members of cabinet and the Prime Minister have an absolute freeze on their salaries for a year and then will follow along with the civil service increases up to 3 per cent depending on the conditions.
None of these measures compromise or will compromise our consistent standards for health and social programs. Rather these measures ensure that we have a strong economy and will be able to afford these programs in the future.
I listened to an individual today from the Liberal Party, I think from Mississauga East, stand up and say: "Let us forget about the fight against inflation. Do not worry about inflation. Let us go back and help those most in need".
I am going to tell you inflation hurts the poor and the people on fixed incomes and those people going to food banks more than than it hurts anyone else in society. Getting inflation down and keeping it down is so important to those people. Despite her suggestion that we give up the fight, we are not going to. We must continue to fight inflation and to reach the realistic goals that have been set by the Government of Canada. I believe that we have a balanced and prudent way to ensure that the deficit this year does not increase over last year. It is tough in the economic period we are going through with the recession and coming out of it, albeit slowly. We do see light at the end of the tunnel.

Government Orders
These measures combined with the economic recovery and the lower interest rates will push our deficit down sharply. In 1992 we are forecasting that the deficit will be in the $25 billion range. That is the lowest it has been in 10 years. By 1995 we will have eliminated the need, as I say, for any new government borrowing on financial markets. That is the first time that has happened in this country in 25 years.
During the recession of 1981-82 the government of the day chose a different path. It allowed the deficit to balloon in that two year period by $23 billion to a total of about $38.5 billion. This burden of debt that all Canadians have inherited-we all have to pay for it and those who are unborn will have to pay for part of it as well-has made the legislation before us today so necessary.
The federal deficit as I said earlier and the debt load are national problems. As they are national problems, they require national solutions. Provinces have benefited greatly by this federal support in the past and by contributing to restraint I believe that they will also reap the benefits by lower inflation, lower interest rates and economic recovery.
Restraint measures in Bill C-20 are an integral part of the government's plan for economic recovery. That plan is designed to restore strong continuing economic growth to create the conditions for renewed prosperity and in the interest of all Canadians I urge members of this House to support Bill C-20 on third reading.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could seek the unanimous consent of the House to ask the minister a short question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


An hon. member:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: There is no unanimous consent.

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 York West-Airports; the hon. member for Skeena- Fisheries; the hon. member for Halifax-Port of Halifax;
the hon. member for Don Valley East-Manufacturing industry; and the hon. member for St. Boniface-Education.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister for addressing the House and explaining why the government is presenting Bill C-20.
When I was listening to him I was reminded of a book I recently started to read by a professor in the United States, Albert Hirschman. It is called The Rhetoric of Reaction, and the subtitle is perversity, futility and jeopardy.
He begins his book with an interesting question: "How does a person get to be that way?" Then he says: "It struck me that this question is at the heart of our times, about the massive, stubborn, exasperating troubles people have in a democratic society".
I would like to just share with the House a short few sentences from this book because I think it sets the tone for what is happening between the government and the people of Canada:
"The unsettling experience of being shut off, not just from the opinions but from the entire life experience of large numbers of one's contemporaries, is actually typical of modern democratic societies."
"In these days of universal celebration of the democratic model, it may be childish to dwell on deficiencies in the functioning of western democracy. It is precisely the spectacular and the exhilarating crumbling of certain walls that calls attention to those that remain intact or to risks that deepen."
"Among them, there is one that can frequently be found in the more advanced democracies: The systematic lack of communication between groups of citizens".
I think the story of Bill C-20 is a parable of a government that has become removed from its citizens, a government that is unable to listen and unable to change its opinion. Our government started out in denial with Bill C-69 and it is in continual denial through each budget until we are faced with this legislation which is one more nail in the coffin of Canada's beloved social health and education programs.
December 2, 1991

This is not the first time this has been raised with the government. This is not the first time questions have been asked. To go back to the debates of June 4, 1991 in Question Period when the same minister was asked about the impact of cutbacks as pointed out by the National Council on Welfare, he denied that there would be any trouble.
He said: "I guess the first thing we can do to help the poor of this country is to get the deficit down". What did we hear today? On the same question, the Prime Minister was asked: "What about the indications that Quebec will get no transfer cash in five years?"
The Prime Minister, instead of acknowledging that it will be one of the major problems facing Canadian Confederation in the next while, stood up and said: "That statement is inaccurate and my hon. friend will see the numbers mentioned today are not at all justified by government projections".
We are seeing just the opposite. We are seeing one battle after another in which the same issues are raised with the government and the same denials are given. In the meantime, the country waivers in its confidence, loses its direction, loses the ability to finance its programs, loses its commitment among friends and is gradually becoming unravelled.
Each and every one of us in this House has the responsibility not to pull it apart, but to pull this government together.
Bill C-20 is the continuation of the strategy of using the stick. It takes advantage of the regulations, along with Bill C-32 and takes advantage of the Supreme Court decision to further the capping of the Canada Assistance Program, the EPF, and as well it extends federal authority to many other jurisdictions in order to ensure that if the federal government does not have the cash, it still has a say in the furthering of the health program.
I was listening very closely to the debate this morning. I share with most members of this House a concern for the future of medicare. Medicare will be the litmus test of this whole country in the 1990s. Whether we were able to finance it properly, reform it and keep it going, these will be the measures that people will use with their politicians.
Government Orders
In furthering the goal of protecting medicare, we cannot walk away from the other people in the system who have become dependent, and rightly so, on the federal presence. There are a number of programs which I will return to in a minute which should not be put in jeopardy because the government refuses to finance medicare properly.
If, as the minister seemed to be insinuating in his comments, the provinces are not spending the money wisely, that is an issue that this government has had seven years to raise with the provinces. To feel that the only way to teach the provinces a lesson is to use a stick against them is a failure of communication, a failure of political will and a failure to develop a tax system which people contribute to willingly because they see an objective at the end.
For these reasons I think the government's strategy has been incorrect and it is one that we oppose very strenuously.
Another part of the denial of the government is whether our system has deteriorated since 1984. If the minister had the opportunity during his busy schedule to listen to the groups that made presentations to the committee on finance, he would have seen just how many groups are unanimous in their feeling that conditions have deteriorated.
One of the more influential reports on health and social programs was just released last week and is entitled Unequal Futures: The Legacies of Child Poverty in Canada. The authors represent some very important groups, particularly in the Toronto region, such as the Child Poverty Action group, the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, and also from institutions such as Ryerson and York University which have a long tradition of working in the area of social policy.
This document is a series of condemnations of this government. It points out the limits of promoting equal opportunities through education, which is now part of our system as a result of cutbacks. It says also that it is widely believed in Canada "that education offers poor children the chance to overcome the limitations of their family background, having been born in poverty third gender, having been born female and their race belonging to a minority group".

Government Orders
Education is seen as the most important equalizer of life chances. I challenge the government to show us in this debate one indication that Bill C-20 contributes positively to the education system in our country, either at the post-secondary level or other at levels that require commitments to English as a second language and to other indicators.
It goes on to talk about the erosion of social policies which support Canadian families. Fighting inflation "with high interest rates is driving more people into unemployment and companies into bankruptcy. Unemployment is a major cause of child and family poverty in Canada. It hits families harder than inflation".
In other words, the strategy is focused on the wrong objectives. The strategy should not be focused on inflation. The strategy should be focused on full employment. Every group in the country agrees except this government which pursues the strategy which is so distinct from the needs and the desires of Canadians that it is totally rejected by every indicator known in the country.
Whether we want to talk about the easy indicator of polls or whether we want to talk about the more serious ones of people marching in the streets, no one wants to deal with this government any longer.
"The abandonment of a public policy commitment to full employment and adequate minimum wage protection has been accompanied in recent years with this concerted attack on social programs and more seriously on fundamental principles which have reflected the underlying social solidarity among Canadians for decades".
Take minimum wage. Right now federal jurisdiction has the lowest minimum wage in the country. In response to a question from this side of the House, the Minister of Labour responded several months ago that it was a concern, he was looking into it and he would be right back to us. Those people are working under the government's jurisdiction and the government thinks that $5 an hour is a good sum of money. They are still waiting for word.
Probably another year will pass before we have an adequate minimum wage under federal jurisdiction because this government still wants to deny its responsibility for helping families. Forget about the people who for whatever reason are on welfare. Let us talk about people who are working. They are working for $5 an hour and this government does not have one minute for them. It cannot find the wherewithal after several years of governing to recognize what it is to work 40 hours a week for $200. It is not right to have a government say: "We are thinking about changing your wage, maybe we will move it up a dime or fifteen cents". Under what circumstances are Canadians to take government seriously concerning their welfare? Under no circumstances.
This report also points out the degree to which this government has shifted the burden of taxation to lower and middle income individuals and families. "In Canada, the overhaul effect of the tax system is regressive because of the shift from corporate to personal income taxes and the excessive use of consumption taxes which hit lower income families the hardest".
You can imagine that as more of an indictment of a government which talked tax reform when it came in, which has produced a series of budgets and at no time has it addressed the fundamental shift of tax burden to the middle income families. Then we heard there were rumblings from the Tories backbenchers. They want to have a tax cutback.
Welcome to the real world. Where were you when your ministers were forming the budgets for the last six years? Why did you not raise then that people were getting overtaxed? Now that we have a crisis and we have poor who need help, the very people we depend upon for their good will and their tax dollars are saying: "We are fed up". They are fed up because you guys blew it and the whole country is paying the price for it.
It is in this context that we came to deal with Bill C-20 in the finance committee. I must, before I leave the overview of the Canadian economy, just spend one more moment talking about the impact of present government legislation on the health care system in this country.

I know this has been talked about but I want to talk about a specific angle. One of the many food banks in this country is Winnipeg Harvest, which has been active for several years and is having such difficulty from time to time in Winnipeg that it is running out of food. We all know the statistics about food banks. It is raised in Question Period regularly, to no avail. We know that in the research presented to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance by Professor Mosco-vitch of Carleton University of the 900,000 people on welfare in Ontario, the so-called gem, the cornerstone of our economy, over 400,000 of those are young people. You have to stop and think about what that means and how many of our cities are desperately trying to deal with thousands of people trying to get fed.
Concerning nutrition, 6 per cent of the babies in Canada have low birth weights, which is a major contributor to developmental disabilities. Low birth rate is inversely related to income status. A 10-year study on the effects of improving the diets of poor women examined the effects of supplementary food on a large group of pregnant women. On average their diet was supplemented by only 530 calories, including 32 grams of protein. The babies born to these women have the same current prenatal and premature death rate as babies born to richer families, and were significantly more healthy than other babies born in public clinics and previous babies bom to the same mothers. In other words, it is nickels and dimes as the world goes to save these babies and to give them a good start in life.
The child mortality rate is twice as high among poor families as among families at the highest income levels.
I could go on and give a number of statistics this way, but all it does is demoralize me and I am sure it demoralizes the many members of the House who are interested in this issue. What we are trying to do is create a new climate in this country in which people can debate with us and can talk with us because they know that we understand their insecurities and their uncertainties.
Certainly all the time I was growing up, and I am sure I speak for other members of the House, Canadians never thought they would see the day when people in other countries would talk about children dying in this country because of malnutrition. Any of us who are familiar with the reserve life in this country would know that that it is a daily reality. Those of us who see inner city hospitals
Government Orders
such as the ones in downtown Winnipeg know just how tenuous life is for many young children. These conditions, for which they are not responsible, unless we step in they will never be able to change.
It is interesting when you go to projects in the inner city. I was at one on Saturday and it reminded me of just how little we know about the country. Here were people so pleased to be able to play a hockey game and have a place to change their skates and to have a hot dog. It is not fancy. What we are doing here is forgetting some of the basics as to what people need to have a good life. We have to get back to recognizing that unless people have those basics, their lives will crumble around them.
One of the more influential studies that came out on health care this summer, in June, was a study done by a Professor Thompson for HEAL, the health action lobby, entitled Federal Support for Health Care: a background paper. I thought this was one of the major studies that should be presented to Parliament because of the number of ways in which the federal government has undermined the program. I quote from Dr. Thompson's report:
It is clear that the recent federal measures have made it more difficult for the provinces to maintain current levels of insured and non-insured health services, let alone to develop new programs in the areas of disease prevention and health promotion.
Given the minister's remarks of a few minutes ago that he thought the provinces were not spending money appropriately, he may be interested in taking a look at how Professor Thompson came to these conclusions.
The information provided by Professor Thompson on the amount of money being withdrawn from the system is some of the most impressive data I have seen. The estimates concerning the EPF are supported by the HEAL group. If you start with the budget year of 1986-87 and go through to the budget year of 1995-96, the federal budget will have pulled $42 billion out of our social, health and education areas. Think about it, $42 billion being pulled from the system. That is having a devastating effect across the country. On the health side that includes $30 billion and on the post-secondary education side, $12 billion. We wonder why tuition fees are going up. We wonder why universities are not being removed. We wonder why our system is falling apart. We do not talk about the fact that we have just pulled $12 billion out of the system.

Government Orders
On the government side, there is a former university president. If the University of Guelph lost as much money when he was president as it is losing now, I wonder what his comments would have been. I think he would have been pretty upset with the fact that his system-and he is now a minister responsible for it-had made a decision to pull $12 billion out of post-secondary education.
If you look at it by province just in the current year, for example, Newfoundland loses $71 million in health, $29 million in education. Prince Edward Island loses $16 million in health and $7 million in education. Nova Scotia loses $111 million in health and $45 million in education. New Brunswick loses $90 million in health and $37 million in education. Quebec loses $843 million in health and $340 million in education. Ontario-and this is the crisis the Ontario government is going through-loses $1.2 billion in health and $489 million in education. Manitoba loses $136 million in health and $55 million in education. Saskatchewan loses $125 million in health and $50 million in education. Alberta loses $308 million in health and $124 million in education. British Columbia loses $390 million in health and $158 million in education. The Northwest Territories loses-even it does not escape-$6 million in health and $3 million in education. Yukon loses $3 million in health and $1 million in education. That is a total of $4.6 billion being taken out of the system.
Sooner or later this is all going to catch up to us. It is up to us as parliamentarians to begin an earnest debate in which we recognize that the time is coming very rapidly toward the end of the system and that we have to fight back now and begin to reform and finance it properly.
The conclusions of this report are worth our consideration:
The recent reductions in federal support for provincial health and health care programs are a matter of grave concern. These reductions are large and growing, to borrow a phrase from the former Minister of Finance. The $3.3 billion shortfall in respect to health programs in the current year will grow to $4.2 billion next year and to $6.6 billion in 1995-96.
This problem is compounded by the fact that cash payments in respect of insured health services will begin to disappear in the second half of the decade. The federal government has recognized it will then no longer be able to enforce the program criteria and conditions in the Canada Health Act, and accordingly has indicated that legislation will be introduced to permit withholding of an amount otherwise payable under the programs.
That is the nub of the problem that we are coming to today.
There were several groups that showed up to meet with the Standing Committee on Finance. It should have been a health matter, but it was sent to the Standing Committee on Finance. Each of these groups had a common theme. We do not expect you to open up your cheque book in an unlimited fashion. We know there is no money in the system. We know we have to reform, but quit using the stick. Every time we hear a budget, you are saying less and less. Quit refusing to recognize that we are trying to change things. There are new groups, such as the HEAL group, which is an extension of several important groups in the health area that want to work together. You cannot work together unless the people who are funding the process understand the dilemma and understand that this is not the 1960s, as the minister says, it is not the 1970s. Everybody knows that. That is a cliche.
It does not mean that you have to be mean and miserable to get the results you want. These groups came forward time and time again to say: "Quit doing this to us because we would like very much to participate and to reform this system. We know there is not going to be more money, but if you give us less and less then you are going to miss this opportunity in this window for reform".
The Canadian Federation of Students noted in its brief that it wished Bill C-20 withdrawn so that it could begin meaningful discussions on the future of post-secondary education in Canada. "Enough is enough", it wrote. What could be a clearer message for the government.
The Canadian Federation of Labour wrote: "The continuing freeze in transfer payments will have serious implications for the future of medicare. Medicare is a national program which Canadians hold in the highest esteem. For many Canadians medicare has become much more than a social program, it is a good part to what defines Canada. The erosion of medicare will not only have serious health and financial implications for many Canadians, it will further damage our national identity". This is a clear message to the government.

The Canadian Hospital Association joined in. The Canadian Public Health Association made the same notes when it said that Bill C-20, as a result of the budget, an act to amend the funding of health care, will not be sufficient to prevent the erosion of these principles over time.
The city of Toronto's Department of Public Health stated: "As one of the largest public health departments in Canada, we are responsible for preventing disease and promoting health for approximately 623,000 Toronto residents". It as well argued that Bill C-20 would seriously undermine its ability to deliver health care.
The Concerned Friends of Ontario, citizens in care facilities had the same opinion. End Legislative Poverty had the same opinion against the legislation. Home Support is made up of people who are very much innovative in the process. It stated: "We believe that the freeze in transfer payments in place since 1990 seriously affect the ability of many provincial governments to adequately finance health care services. We also feel that the ongoing reduction in cash transfer payments will undermine the federal government's authority and ability to enforce the standards of the Canada Health Act". Is anybody listening to groups like that?
The Hospital Council of Metropolitan Toronto had a strong statement. The National Pensioners and Senior Citizens Federation said: "The continuing freeze in transfer payments will have serious implications for the future of medicare. Medicare is a national program which Canadians hold in the highest esteem. It will further damage our national identity to end this program".
The Occupational Health Centre in Winnipeg had the same strong viewpoint.
The Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care said: "We believe the potential implications of Bill C-20 to be far more far-reaching than any single piece of legislation to date. All Canadians should have the opportunity to make their voices heard on such an important issue".
The St. Boniface General Hospital wrote in for an opportunity to speak with the same reasons. The Canadian Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs also had something to say.
Government Orders
These are not your cry babies, these are not people you would expect to have out at your local neighbourhood meetings when you know you are only going to get social policy groups, these are mainstream organizations which are realizing that the fundamentals of this country are being undermined.
"Canada has a future in which she will be required to be more and more competitive in the world marketplace. Without a work force properly trained in the skills and technology necessary to meet this challenge, we doom our businesses and citizens to an ever increasing downward spiral with ever lower standards of living. As women we are particularly conscious of this fact. The majority of people living below the poverty line in Canada are women and children. Without the necessary funds to ensure that schooling programs are available to continue to teach and upgrade skills and to ensure that financial assistance is available to assist women in benefiting from post-secondary training, we will never be able to break the poverty cycle". Again, this is a clear message to the government.
I would like to use the major part of my speech to address what I consider to be the fundamental flaw in this legislation. This was raised with the government when it tabled its budget in February and raised again subsequently in the debate in the House and in committee and that is the constitutionality of clause 4.
Clause 4 is an effort by the federal government to extend its authority in health care legislation to ensure that the health care system is protected. Nobody in their right mind would say they wanted to undermine the health care system. Since the federal government is conceding that there will be less cash transfers in the system, therefore less leverage it will have with the provincial governments due to cash, it has recognized that it has two choices; either to abandon the field or to extend its authority over the provinces through the back door.
The implication of Bill C-20 is to open up this back door. We object to this back door approach because it makes other groups very vulnerable to the vicissitudes of a government which without cash wants to protect its political base. This government knows that if it is caught in any way, shape or form appearing to undermine medicare that it is "done like dinner". It is one in which

December 2, 1991
Government Orders
it will be totally undermined and in fact will lose its political base in the country.
The government very quietly introduced a piece of legislation which I guess superficially is a good idea. We do not have cash in the health care system, scoop the cash out of other programs and force the provinces to behave just the way you think they should.
Which programs can they scoop out? Let us take a look at this: equalization payments, a total of about $8.4 billion is available to them; territorial financing, about $1 billion is available to them; grants in lieu of taxes, $344 billion is available to them; the public utilities income tax transfer, another $280 million; statutory subsidies, $36 million; the Canada Assistance Plan, that is available to them now, $6.4 billion; crop insurance, $270 million; the formula payments under the official languages and education, $243 million; miscellaneous health and welfare transfers, $170 million; the young offenders services, $158 million; justice transfers, $77 million; transportation transfers to provinces and municipalities, $69 million. All these are now made vulnerable because of this particular strategy of the federal government.
Many groups came to us with the firm belief that this was not only mean spirited but in fact was unconstitutional. We were presented at committee with the legal opinion by a Toronto law firm, Goodman & Carr, that Bill C-20 was vulnerable to constitutional challenge. For one of the few times in the history of the Elouse of Commons, and I would have to ask the Table when they had seen it before, this legal opinion has been appended to the report of the committee to the Elouse so that the minister fully understands that committee members were concerned about the constitutionality of clause 4 and the strategy of taking transfer payments from other programs to protect health care.
The reason for the seriousness with which we approach this is as follows. The law firm points out that Parliament has a capacity to unilaterally alter the terms of a range of existing federal-provincial fiscal arrangements, but the question is can these changes be imposed for the express purpose of supplementing the federal
government's dwindling cash contribution to provide health insurance plans and preserving its ability to enforce national standards and health care through the Canada Elealth Act.
The opinion of the law firm is that as a matter of strict legal principles, they cannot, that Bill C-20 is vulnerable to a constitutional challenge on grounds discussed within its opinion. The question of Bill C-20's vulnerability to constitutional challenge must be answered with reference to the organizing principles of the Canadian state. Canada is a federal state, as they point out. This means that the totality of legislative power theoretically available to the government of any state is shared by two levels of government and that one cannot move into another area without a history of legislation and discussions and laws.
By contrast, it may be argued that to enact legislation such as the Canada Elealth Act which in addition to providing for the mechanics of the transfer requires provinces to make specified policy choices, that is health insurance plans would be publicly administered on a non-profit basis, is to find indirectly what the federal government cannot do directly due to its lack of legislative competence.
It goes on in this particular decision to point out that there has been a shift in position by the federal government which is very important. This shift is away from voluntarism, which is an argument that a province could choose to pursue different policy objectives from those established by the federal government in the Canada Health Act by simply choosing to forgo the federal cash contribution to its health insurance program.
The national standards established by the act appear very different in the light of Bill C-20, however, compulsory rather than voluntary. In this case if a province chose to exercise its legislative competence and enact legislation which conflicted with the Canada Health Act, the federal government would be entitled to penalize the province by withholding an amount that reflected the gravity of the breach of standards from any moneys owed to the province by the federal government.

Government Orders
Of necessity any sanction imposed under Bill C-20 have the act revised. They avoided discussion on clause 4 would exceed the federal government's cash contribu- today because in committee they acceded that it was tion to the province's health insurance program.	better to have clause 4 than not to have it at all.
In order to relieve itself of the obligation to maintain the national standard established by the Canada Health Act, therefore a province would have to withdraw from every federal-provincial fiscal arrangement involving the transfer of funds from the federal government to the province, an impossible and unrealistic task and practice.
In the view of this law firm the effect of Bill C-20 is to alter the character of a sanction under the Canada Health Act from the withdrawal of a privilege, i.e. access to federal funds to supplement the provincial health care budget to the imposition of fines, i.e. the refusal to transfer federal funds designated for programs other than health care and to which the province is otherwise entitled.
The implication here is that in order to get what they want done and to avoid putting in more cash, to avoid the issues of tax reform, of properly funding Canada's social programs, the cabinet is going to look around to see who is vulnerable, who does not have a political constituency. Is it the poor receiving money on welfare through CAP? Is it the students who need loans? Is it the faculty who need new libraries and proper facilities? Who is vulnerable? Is it the city of Ottawa? Is it the city of Winnipeg? Is it the core area initiative? What is it? What is vulnerable?
Let us show the provinces that we are boss and let us take money from these because we know the provinces will not risk health care to protect these little programs. When the provinces have to choose between maintaining a health program and maintaining a core area initiative, a child care program in some small community, we know what choice they will make because we know where all the fuss is and we are all politicians and we know what people are concerned about. But it is a mean and miserable attitude that has to be drawn to the attention of the Canadian public and we have to form a coalition to stop it.
Our party has a fundamental disagreement with the NDP on this issue and this came out in the committee and in today's debate and the way in which they wish to
My argument is that one has to be very careful in acceding to any government, particularly this government with a very right wing agenda, the total authority to arbitrarily choose who is going to be vulnerable and who is going to pay the price for a good health care system.
The payment for a Canadian health care system is both a national and a provincial responsibility. We all benefit from it and as taxpayers, we all contribute to it. As such, it must be maintained in the context of Canada's taxation system in Canadian priorities and health and social legislation as one of our highest priorities.
In answering the health needs of Canadians, we cannot walk away from other needs. It is not as nice to be talking about the needs of poor people and the needs of aboriginal people and nobody really wants to dirty their hands by saying they really need a lot of money, they need a lot of resources. Everyone wants to walk from that.
Our party wants it to be known that we are not going to walk away from this. We are not going to accede to legislation which allows the government to pick and choose who it is going to help and who it is going to hurt in order to maintain a health care system. It is the responsibility of the federal government to organize its house so Canadians feel secure that their health system is protected and at the same time that other groups are not going to be abandoned. Our party is willing to oppose this legislation at every step of the way. In conclusion, I would just like to touch briefly upon another point that I am sure many other members of the House will raise and discuss in more detail, and that is that this bill is the introduction of several what appear to be minor changes to see to the implementation of the Unemployment Insurance Act.
Subsequent to the introduction of this legislation, this government has seen the economy tumble even more dramatically than it has tumbled before. In the spring we are going to be faced with perhaps hundreds of thousands of Canadians, without exaggeration, whose UI benefits are running out and who are going to be forced for the first time in their lives to go to welfare.

December 2, 1991
Government Orders
It does not matter whether we are talking about communities such as Windsor or my own in Winnipeg, or some other communities represented on the other side of the House, Toronto, Prince Edward Island, there will be people who are running out of UI. This government today, in continuing to press for the conclusion of this legislation and seeing it through the House, has again refused to recognize the devastating effects that UI changes are having on Canadians.
Again taxes are being increased through the back door without providing any benefits to the people who are desperately in need. Furthermore, changes to the training component has completely undermined the organization of training among social groups in this country. It is a total abrogation of responsibility for which Canadians are going to hold this government accountable.
In conclusion, I would like to introduce an amendment:
I move:
That the motion be amended by striking out all of the words after the word "that" and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-20, an act to amend certain statutes to implement the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 1991, be not now read a third time, but that the said bill be referred back to the Standing Committee on Finance for reconsideration of Clauses 2, 3, 4 and 8.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Speaker will check to see if the motion is in order.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, let me first say that the speeches which have been contributed to this debate by both the minister at the start of the debate and by the health critic from the Liberal Party, the member for Winnipeg, are good statements of their political positions. I congratulate both of them for putting those positions well and for putting them with a sense of sincerity and a clearly strong belief they both feel within those positions.
I just want to mention briefly, before moving into my speech, the point made by the health critic from the Liberal Party. I think it is very important for us to deal in the real world in this House. Part of dealing in the real world is to recognize that sometimes provinces will seek to escape obligations which exist under the Canada Health Act. There must be some clear commitment on the part, not of this government which is temporarily in
office now, but on the part of Parliament which will adopt or reject this legislation. There must be a clear commitment, a clear signal to all provinces that the Canada Health Act is central to what constitutes our vision of Canada. The accessibility to that system, the portability, the fairness with which that system operates is so crucial that there must be a strong commitment to financial penalties if a province chooses to reject commitments to the Canada Health Act.
The representative from the Liberal Party has suggested that section 4 provides some such penalties. Our view as a party is not necessarily that these are the best protections or that these are the best kinds of penalties to establish.
Within the Canada Health Act as it presently stands there is the capacity to impose certain penalties. It is an act incidentally which was passed by the Liberal Party.
I want to quote to the House from the Canadian Public Health Association which to my mind gave one of the strongest briefs to the finance committee looking at Bill C-20. They said very clearly:
We support clause 4 which reinforces the federal government's role
in maintaining fiscal and legislative mechanisms to achieve
compliance with national health care standards.
That is what is at the heart of our concern with this entire piece of legislation which is in front of us. We have here something which is fundamentally an attack on the future of the medical care system in this country. It is a system which Canadians across this country are proud of, believe in and want to see survive.
It is an attack as well on the security of funding for the post-secondary education system in this country. It is an attack on small business and on workers in the extra fees imposed for unemployment insurance which are put into place.
Over all it represents not a serious effort to deal with the deficit problem in this country. Instead it is a mechanism by which the deficit problem is transferred to the provinces. It is a mechanism by which the provinces are faced with having to pay the bills which federal governments, both Liberal and Conservative, have failed to pay for the past 15 years in Canada. For that reason our party strongly opposes this piece of legislation.
December 2, 1991

I want to start out if I could with the prepared points that I wanted to make on some quotations from a previous speaker of the opposition. They were very strong quotations and very powerful positions which were put.
Let me quote from one previous occasion in which there were cutbacks of the sort that were made in this piece of legislation. A Leader of the Opposition at that point said:
The problem with the medicare system resulting from those cuts arose because the federal government reneged on the commitments it made to the provinces and cut back very drastically on the dollars it sent to the provinces who are charged with administering and paying for medicare.
This same Leader of the Opposition went on to say that his party was: "in favour of quality medicare, universal medicare delivered to our citizens". "The problem," he said, "has arisen because of a unilateral and arbitrary cutback by the federal government to the provinces who are charged with footing the bill". That is the problem. That same Leader of the Opposition went on to say that his government, if it was elected, would restore the original 50/50 split in medicare costs between the federal and provincial governments if elected to office.
Members here in the House may wonder who this opposition leader was. Was it the member for Vancouver Quadra attacking previous Conservative budgets? Was it perhaps the Leader of the Opposition who presently sits in the House as Leader of the Liberal Party? Was it perhaps my colleague from the city of Windsor at the time that he was Leader of the Opposition for the Liberal Party?
No, those commitments and those criticisms came from the Leader of the Opposition who is now Prime Minister of this country. The Prime Minister before he was elected said the problem was: "the unilateral and arbitrary attacks by the federal government on the provinces". He promised to restore the 50/50 split in medicare costs. That particular quote comes from The Ottawa Citizen of August 24, 1983. The previous quote was from the Vancouver Sun of August 8, 1983. This was during the course of a campaign across the country on the medicare issue.
Yet what do we see from this government? We have seen four straight attacks of exactly the same kind that this Prime Minister criticized in opposition. These were
Government Orders
attacks which arbitrarily and unilaterally cut back the transfers to the provinces and laid that deficit load on the backs of those provinces.
The judgment has come in to the finance committee from dozens of groups across this country as to the effects of this approach. Some of the presentations have been quoted by the previous speaker for the Liberal Party. Let me quote a few more.
We can quote from the Canadian Federation of Students that stresses:
The effects of Bill C-20 and its predecessors must be considered in the context of a long list of government initiatives which are affecting students. Itvo years ago the government began privatization of Canada's student loans program. This year there is a 3 per cent tax on student loans, an application of the goods and services tax to students' books and closure of the Canada Employment Centres on campuses across the country.
Students in post-secondary education have been hit extremely hard.
The Public Health Association has indicated and provided its judgment to the committee. It is one of the most respected groups across this country. It said:
The position of the Canadian Public Health Association is that unilateral funding cutbacks to medicare are not the only, nor even the most effective way for the federal government to address financial restraint issues.
Let me quote what the the Hospital Employees Union said to the committee:
For many Canadians medicare has become much more than a social program. It is a good part of what defines Canada. The erosion of medicare will not only have serious health and financial implications for many Canadians it will further damage our national identity".
Let me quote from the Canadian Medical Association which is perhaps the most critical of all. Here is a group that you would have thought the federal government would have at least consulted before going at the gutting of our medicare program. It did not even consult them. No discussions took place whatsoever with that group of people charged with perhaps the highest responsibility in the medical care system. What is the judgment of the doctors of this country of this government and what it is doing to medicare? What is clear to the CMA and the health community at large is the changes in EPF transfers including this proposed extension of the freeze have destabilized the system and its capacity to continue to provide high quality health care services to all Canadians.

December 2, 1991
Government Orders
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, if we as a House can accept an approach which even flies in the face of the strongest possible recommendations of the doctors on whom we depend to run our medical care system. We could talk about nurses as well. They said in their brief to the committee that Bill C-20 represents the fourth successive attempt by the government to limit the federal role in medicare. The effect of these changes is set out in tables that they gave to the committee which indicate that the government since 1985, when it took its first step against these transfers to the provinces, has saved over $42 billion. The great bulk of that was $30 billion in savings in the health area.
That tells us in graphic detail the way in which this government has transferred its obligations, its responsibilities and its promises to the backs of the provinces. Consequently there have been provinces across this country that have been terribly hard hit. Some have been able to keep the medical care system basically going. But others have essentially had to break their commitments under the medical care system in this country.
British Columbia for instance raised its premiums. Annual family coverage in British Columbia costs $840. Manitoba significantly reduced its dental and hearing coverage for children and has introduced a $50 user fee for northern residents who travel south for elective surgery. Nova Scotia has reduced its dental coverage for children and its drug coverage for seniors and the poor. Saskatchewan has made its seniors pay 25 per cent of prescription drug costs and made nursing home residents pay for their medication. It has also raised home care fees by 15 per cent. Newfoundland under the Liberals has closed 360 acute care beds and laid off 1,500 health care workers. Quebec has proposed a $5 user charge for the "frivolous" use of hospital emergency wards. Alberta has closed two community health centres, raised medicare premiums by 13 per cent and forced seniors to pay 25 per cent of the cost of canes, wheelchairs, walkers and other medically related items. That is what has happened as a consequence of what was $42 billion in savings. It has not just somehow disappeared. It has gone into provincial deficits. It has been passed on in terms of increased expenditures which people have had to put across to get basic medical care coverage in this country.
The answer is not to be complacent about the medical care system. We have to be concerned about the cost of
medicare. In fact we had presented to us from the Canadian Co-Operative Association a whole set of recommendations and ways in which to move toward reform of medicare: less institutionalization of older Canadians, less ordering of unnecessary tests, more use of community clinics, more careful prescribing of drugs. A great many things can take place. There has to be that reform.
We heard from every group that spoke to the finance committee that to deal with the escalation of health costs, to make these reforms, these changes which will make the health care system even more efficient than it is at the moment, we have to provide some latitude. We cannot squeeze and squeeze and squeeze. We cannot bankrupt the health care system in this country by the freeze being extended for a further three years on EPF transfers.
The same thing will be discussed by some of my colleagues with respect to the UI changes that hurt small business and workers and the post-secondary education problems created by this bill. But the biggest threat this legislation represents is the threat to something all Canadians hold dear, and that is the threat to medicare. We are going "to fight as hard as we can in the House and outside the House to prevent this threat to medicare from being carried through.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am ready to rule that the motion tabled by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is in order.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I listened with care and considerable interest to the remarks made by my colleague from Essex. It is manifestly clear to us in the New Democratic Party that Bill C-20 and the extension of the freeze on the EPF envelope is just further evidence that the government wants health care programs and education at the post-secondary level to fall more and more within the purview of the corporate agenda or the marketplace and less and less as a component of social policy in this country.
As the minister knows or should know, one of the great characteristics of our country in contrast to the United States, for example, is that we did have a social policy in this country that set us apart, that made us a kinder and more gentle society and a more caring society. This bill certainly takes away from that social approach established in this country some 40 years ago and which, I am very proud to say, my party has had a considerable impact on and influence over.
December 2, 1991

I have a question for my colleague from Essex. I would like to ask him, having listened to his remarks with respect to Bill C-20 and its impact on Canada as a whole and on the national economy in general, how this bill and its provisions will impact on his constituency and on the region he represents.
I am speaking now of the Windsor region and the rural area as well around Windsor. It is an area very similar to my own, the federal riding of Brant that has been very, very devastated by this recession as it was in the early 1980s. Certainly this time the impact has gone even further and deeper.
I would like to ask my friend and colleague how this bill affects his constituency and the region of Windsor where he comes from?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Brant for the comments and for the question.
One thing it is important to say with respect to some of the comments my friend made is that we perhaps do not understand in this country just how much better our medical care system is than that in the United States.
I wanted to add to the record a quotation which I was not able to include in my speech from the National Federation of Nurses Unions which was reporting with respect to this question. It indicated in the following in its brief: "A recent study comparing Massachusetts and Manitoba found that in nine of eleven surgical procedures Manitoba residents had lower mortalities than patients in the Massachusetts hospitals. In comparison to the United States, Canadian mortality and life expectancy rates also confirmed that Canadians had superior health status". We are talking about a system that really has a fine record, but a system which is under terrible strain.
I certainly can see it in my constituency. The strain is very much there with respect to the hospitals in my community. It is seen not just in problems of beds having to be shut down because of cost pressures. It is seen in the queuing which is having to take place. It is seen in people in fact having to go across the border to the United States in order to have heart problems looked after, for instance. This is something which certainly should not be taking place in our country. We have
Government Orders
tremendously skilled medical practitioners. Oftentimes we have the facilities, but the facilities are not operative because of the cost squeeze imposed upon them by these $30 billion worth of cuts since 1985 that the federal government has put into effect. These cuts will get worse.
In my community people look to their health care system as something which is a tremendous advantage that they share compared to their counterparts in the United States just across the river, but they also see the strain starting to grow. I hope for the sake of them, their health and for all of us in our country, that people in Canada will realize this legislation is just one more step in threatening the medical care system of this country.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I have one final comment and question. It seems to me that the more we damage the medicare system in this country with cutbacks or freezes, the greater the negative impact that will have on those forces in the United States looking to us and to our medicare system as a solution to their privately funded medical system.
I have talked to American congressmen recently who said: "We are looking to you to show the way". These are Liberal Democrats, of course, and some of them are actually Republicans as well who usually represent constituencies within large cities where there is a lot of poverty.
I would like to ask my colleague from Essex whether or not he sees this damaging of our medicare in Canada because of these negative funding techniques the federal government is putting into place as setting back the progressive forces in the United States trying to bring on stream a government sponsored medicare system in that country.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a very good point.
The finance committee recently made a trip to Washington to look at the question of how to deal with the deficit. Interestingly we were told by many of the government people whom we met there that in the United States it is being recognized increasingly that to deal with the problems they face, the ballooning costs of their system which are far, far greater than our system and escalating far faster, they are going to have to move to some kind of public medicare system.

Government Orders
It is being strongly opposed by some special interest groups, especially some of the private hospitals. I think if we in this country do not safeguard the system we have in Canada, such a superb system that it is but feeling the strains as I say, we make it much more difficult for those in the debate in the United States.
Their opponents will be able to look to Canada and see the problems in Canada. They will see the strains in Canada in our medicare system and say: "This is something that just comes with the public health care system as opposed to what it really is: something which comes with irresponsible funding provisions from a federal government to that public system".


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to speak in opposition to Bill C-20 put forward by the government.
I must begin by saying that I listened to the previous speech of the member from Essex-Windsor. I agreed with nearly everything that New Democratic Party member said. I hope the member can take his words today and pass them on to his friends at Queen's Park in the province of Ontario where I come from, because I like him share the view that the Canada Health Act is central to our vision of Canada. Any effort to dismantle or cut back in the maintenance and preservation of our health care system is really weakening the basic value system of this country.
I realize that the province of Ontario is in a very difficult position here. From the beginning of this Health Act, this has been a national government initiative. It has always been the national government that has taken the lead in terms of our national health care system.
Quite frankly, during the last election in my particular community one of the reasons that I was concerned about the Meech Lake Accord was the fact that the national standards of national institutions were in jeopardy.
A lot of us could see and sense that this approach of the current government of pushing things off on to the provinces was going to break these national services down.
Those of us who had concerns and who wanted amendments to Meech Lake were not anti-Quebec, but we could see in this document areas that were vulnerable. I believe this is a prime example where the national government is risking something that is core, something that is fundamental to the value system of this country. The value system I am referring to is one of Canada being a nation that is caring and compassionate. We have always exemplified that through the maintenance of our national health care system, with national standards that ensured every region of this country and every citizen of this country had access to universal medicare.
I listened earlier this evening to the minister responsible for privatization. He said that last week they listened to some experts when they were doing some pre-budget consultations in Toronto. These experts were telling the government that it was right on track, just keep going the way it was going, it was right on track. I have to say that I would like to know who these experts are and what track they are on.
I see the member here today from Don Valley East who I know is concerned about this issue because in his riding, and I share with him the responsibility, is the East General Hospital. The East General Hospital, which is one of the largest hospitals in downtown Toronto, is currently suffering from low morale. It is incredibly difficult for the professionals there to maintain the quality service that has built their reputation. It is primarily driven because of the lack of budget, the lack of resources to give the kind of professional service that has always been a standard in this country and which has always made us so unique.
As some members said earlier, people come from all over the world to study our medicare system. Right at the time when other countries want to convert to our system, we seem to be tampering with a process that is leading to it being undermined, which ultimately could lead to a second-class, second-rate system.
Therefore, I think it is very important that we focus on this issue. Our medicare system is something that has galvanized us as a country. It is something that has always given us great pride. It seems to me that whenever this government is faced with the arguments of fiscal responsibility, its immediate action is just to automatically cut, cut, cut.
December 2, 1991

I do not think the people of Canada will ever forget this government's use of that approach with our national medicare system. I do not think those of us who are in this House today would be forgiven if we allowed this legislation to go through without challenging it.
It is not as if there is a void of ideas as to how we can maybe improve the process of handling our medicare system.
I met a gentleman just three weeks ago, Dr. Michael Rachlis. I did not meet his co-author, Carol Kushner. They wrote a book called Second Opinion. I recommend it to anyone that is involved in the health care system in this country. It speaks about what is wrong with Canada's health care system and how to fix it. He details not just what some of the problems are with our health care system, but he is also providing all kinds of constructive ideas and solutions where we may be able to improve our medicare system without tampering or cutting back on the universal access and service.
He is talking about numbers where we could save anywhere from $8 billion to $16 billion if a proper review and a proper redistribution of the health care system was looked at. I am not saying that I agree with every aspect of all of his recommendations.
There are professionals who have devoted their lives to the medicare system in this country and it is incumbent on us before we take this approach of slashing and cutting back to pick their brains and to use their ideas and try some of these things.
The morale in the health care system today is very low. We are capping doctors. We are turning them into bureaucrats. We are not respecting their entrepreneurial skills. Some of these doctors want to work harder and work longer. They understand that this is a profession that is almost a vocation and yet at the same time, we are stifling them. We are bureaucratizing them in the name of fiscal responsibility.
Government Orders
The very last institution in this country that we should be tampering with is our health care system. As a New Democratic Party member said earlier today, it is central to the vision that we have all had and want to continue to have in this country and any attempt to alter or change that is a regressive step that is not going to fare well.
I plead with government members opposite and other members to stand up and oppose this government on this bill. Let us send this legislation back and cut off this thinking that we can tamper with our health care system, which is only going to lead to a further deterioration of the already low morale that exists in this country.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my hon. friend on a forthright and to the point good presentation.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: As usual.


Fred J. Mifflin: As usual. I know of his genuine concern for our national health care system and the difficult position that our doctors and our nurses and our health care system are getting into, reducing the number of hospital beds and all that sort of thing. It is being faced by all of us. I am sure it is not much different in Toronto from what it is in my riding and indeed all of Newfoundland and Labrador where people are now feeling the pinch. The money is not there, the doctors are worried , the health care boards are worried, hospitals are actually being closed and the number of beds have been reduced.
There is another aspect I am sure the hon member would like to comment on. Unemployment is pretty bad in Toronto right now. It used to be that people from my riding, where traditionally unemployment has been high, would leave for Toronto and indeed the hon. member's riding. Indeed, in the hon. member's riding I think he has a considerable number of people from Newfoundland and Labrador and indeed from my riding. I met a few of them when I was up there a few years ago. It was a real pleasure to meet them. They cannot leave Newfoundland and go to Toronto any more because there is no work in Toronto.
It is time that we used the creative process in looking * (	}
at this medicare system because the people of Canada
are looking for us to come up with some answers in this I am sure that the hon. member has discussed this with House other than cut, cut, cut. The morale of this his constituents. It is a major concern of those of us on country, because of this word cut, has never been as low. this side of the House. I am referring to the way that the There are alternatives.	government has treated unemployment insurance. Every

December 2, 1991
Government Orders
single promise it made on this particular sensitive issue has been broken.
Just two weeks ago we spoke in the House, the hon. member for Restigouche-Chaleur and others, on ways that we could be more sensitive, or at least the government could be more sensitive, in recognizing those people who had to serve on juries to have their claims honoured. I still do not understand why the government will not go along with that.
I am concerned about a very sensitive issue in the sense of promises that have been made by the Minister of Finance who, when he introduced his budget, said they would look after any further deficits in the unemployment insurance fund.
In the relatively short time that the hon. member and I have been in politics, the employee cost has gone from $1.95 to $3. That is a 60 per cent increase. It does not sound like very much when you say it, $1.95 to $3, but that is for every $100 of earnings.
For the employer who pays roughly 40 per cent more, it has gone from $2.73 to $4.20. The government is not paying anything. It used to pay 31 per cent. It does not pay that any more.
I would like to ask the hon. member if he is getting any flack in his riding on this broken promise of not to increase the fees and not to change it-indeed before the last election nothing would change in unemployment insurance-how it is affecting his constituents and what he is telling them that the government might want to do next.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. This government through its crazy tax designs has basically broken the morale of entrepreneurship in this country. In the process of doing that it has basically caused an unemployment rate that is scary in this country today.
What we have is a situation right now where those who are unemployed do not see any hope and even those who are employed are nervous that tomorrow or next week their jobs could be in jeopardy.
What is doubly crippling about this whole phenomenon is that the government continues through a litany of small taxes like this unemployment insurance tax to load up the few businesses that are left fighting to stay alive, fighting to get through the worst recession probably in the history of this country.
I just cannot understand where the government is coming from. I have said it in this House before. I would rather have an extra two, three or four billion dollars on the deficit and have those 1.5 million people working than have a $30-odd billion deficit and have almost 2 million people not working, not paying tax, who have to be supported by the few that are working.
I think this government's system and attitude toward the UI fund, the UI premiums is once against shortsighted. It says it listens to the experts who are telling it they are on track. I come from the same area as the minister of privatization and I cannot find any of these experts who say the government is on track. I cannot find any experts even from Midland, or Penetang, who are saying that this government is on track.
I think this is just another example where the government has basically thrown this line out that it maybe met someone in some sort of casual meeting and maybe somebody casually said it was on track. It is not listening to a majority of Canadians.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, the colleague who has just spoken, the member for Broadview-Greenwood, mentioned unemployment in the context of the debt and the deficit. I wonder if he has given any consideration and might have any comments on the extent to which reducing unemployment, in fact investing in getting people back to work, would actually assist with reduction of the debt and deficit.
It seems to me that with the large number of people not working, not earning income, therefore, not paying taxes and in fact receiving either unemployment insurance, welfare payments or other assistance they need to get through this, in fact every person in Canada who is not working is contributing directly to the debt or the deficit, that one of the quickest ways to get rid of the deficit is to have that 10 per cent of Canadians out there working, earning income, creating jobs for other Canadians with the goods and services they are purchasing and paying taxes rather than being in the unenviable position of relying on others for support.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa West is so accurate when she focuses on the fact that full unemployment is obviously going to make a massive difference in the UI draw on this government Treasury. The forecast this year is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $16 billion, $17 billion or $18 billion.

December 2, 1991

Government Orders
I personally cannot understand why the government would not prefer to take a little bit of a leap of faith and put some program money, some capital expenditure money, on the table and have that force working where it obviously is going to move off the unemployment insurance draw and into a position where they are going to become active taxpayers.
This dismantling program, this cut, cut, cut and drive inflation right under the table, I cannot believe that the Bank of Canada is using a contemporary model for calculating inflation. I cannot find inflation anywhere in Toronto.
We met some farmers from western Canada last week and there is no inflation in western Canada. When are we going to stop playing this sort of gymnastic game on inflation and start realizing that there is a little bit of slack left and let us try to put people back to work.
Let us put people back to work. Let us make them taxpayers again and that will address the government's deficit problem a lot more quickly than this cut, cut, cut, demoralize the country program.


Mr. Guy H. Arseneault (Restigouche-Chaleur):: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for again giving me an opportunity to take part in the debate on Bill C-20, a Conservative measure aimed at inflicting hardship on this unfortunate country of ours.
Considering the scope and consequences of this bill, I have no choice but to express my apprehension. This legislation will undermine our education programs, medicare and social programs which have become the hallmark of this country. And the government has the impertinence to do this on the sly, with a bill that seems so harmless and technical, it could go almost unnoticed.
Unfortunately, by introducing such regressive legislation, the government contributes to the erosion of the social fabric of our country. One would think the Conservatives had signed an unconditional surrender and were abandoning Canada to its fate.
As far as federal-provincial relations are concerned, this bill gives notice that the government refuses to be actively involved in developing measures that would help rally people from all regions behind the Canadian flag.
How can a national government be so ruthlessly intent on reducing Canada to an empty shell? Instead of running this country in a responsible way and considering the needs of all citizens, the government is intent on balancing its budget, reducing spending in terms of our national debt and reducing the deficit at the expense of Canadian citizens. The government is using the deficit as an excuse. It has chosen to ignore the cost of the social deficit. It has abdicated its responsibilities.
Therefore, it does nothing to build the country, bring people together and ensure that all Canadians feel that they can benefit from belonging to our country. Since 1977, the federal government has contributed to health and higher education with tax transfers and cash payments.
Federal support for health and post-secondary education was to keep up with total economic growth every year. Unfortunately, since 1986, this support has been reduced, as a result of a series of decisions made by the Conservative government on the pretext of reducing the deficit. According to the report released by the National Council of Welfare last spring, if this trend continues, federal cash payments for health and higher education under the 1977 fiscal arrangements will completely disappear in a few years.
Furthermore, if federal support declines any more, as I said when this measure was debated last spring, Canada will have 12 different provincial and territorial plans, instead of the health insurance plan that we know, which varies little across the country.
If the system breaks up, we will very likely see several regions again allowing extra billing and charging hospital user fees, which the 1984 Canada Health Act almost completely eliminated.

December 2, 1991
Government Orders
Bill C-20 could have an effect on health care, child care, welfare benefits, income tax, grants in lieu of taxes for municipalities, grants to native people, and so on.
Farmers will be affected because crop insurance might be reduced. Graduate students will be particularly affected. These transfers may be cut, which would have an impact on services to young offenders. Legal aid programs could also be affected, as well as transportation grants to the provinces and municipalities. That especially concerns me because funding for airport operations may be particularly affected.
Charlo airport in my riding always needs funds and it cannot afford cuts.
The provisions of Bill C-20 concerning unemployment insurance clearly contradict the government's commitment to help fund this program in difficult times.

The bill we are examining today, this evening and probably tomorrow is a very complex one and a very technical one but it does have some very devastating impacts on all of Canada especially the regions of Canada.
Bill C-20 was introduced to implement four initiatives outlined in the February 1991 federal budget. I need not say here what Canadians think of that budget. One of the most important changes would provide amendments to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act. It would extend the cap on Established Programs Financing, or the EPF, transfers to the provinces.
Another proposed amendment would dramatically increase unemployment insurance payments for both employees and employers. The other two components would provide for the capping of sessional allowances. There is no problem with that. There would also be a continued freeze on tax grants for the provinces collected from public utilities.
I believe sincerely that we need a strong federal presence in our health care system. I believe that to have that strong federal presence we need a strong financial commitment from the government. This Bill C-20 does
not do that. It puts the provinces in a very difficult situation. It gives them two choices. First, it can raise taxes. I can assure you right now that taxes are at their maximum limit federally and provincially so that gives them the second option of cutting services and programs. To me that is just not acceptable.
This bill is an attack on the health care system. It is also an attack on post-secondary education. So it goes far beyond withholding just EPF entitlements as a means of deterring the Canada Health Act.
It does affect education. I want to spend a few minutes if I may on the area of education. The government record on education has been mostly small talk. It has been playing public relations games by announcing nice programs and using nice choice words that sound great out there. If we look at their record we can see that the student loan program needs a complete review right across Canada. There has been no increased sums of money put into those programs since 1984. The government has turned around and levied a 3 per cent administrative tax on student loans. That is a complete shame. It is taxing people who just cannot afford it.
There is another thing I should mention as my critic's responsibility in the area of communications and culture. It is the first time that we have seen a government in the history of Canada tax learning. The Prime Minister has said in this House that we want to develop a learning culture. The government's policies speak against that by placing a GST tax on books and magazines. That is contrary to what the Prime Minister really wants. I would suspect that the Prime Minister should be reviewing some of his policies in that regard.
I want to also mention something I spoke of earlier regarding transportation. How does transportation-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: One moment, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but I appeal to everyone's co-operation. I have difficulty hearing the speaker, and I would imagine that others have the same problem. Therefore, I ask all members to co-operate. The hon. member for Restigouche-Cha-leur.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to those who are listening from both sides of the House that I did mention a little bit about transportation. You may wonder what this has to do with health care and post-secondary education. There is a part of the bill that needs to be brought down to a common denominator and that is this. The federal government is hoping to use other mechanisms to force provinces to maintain certain health standards across Canada. In other words, we are going to have national health standards. In the past since the federal government was contributing a fair amount of money to those programs it could use the power of the purse so to speak as leverage with the the provinces to make sure national health standards would be met.
With this reduction in funds going to the medicare system by the federal government we see it may turn out that there will be no money at all going to these provinces for medicare. As such there would be no commitment from the province or no leverage by the federal government to ask these provinces to continue their national standards. As such they have decided to introduce in this bill other mechanisms. They would like to take from other programs. They would say: "Listen, if you do not maintain your national standards then we are going to cut your funding somewhere else". That is why I want to speak to you this evening, Mr. Speaker, and through you to all the members of the House.
Transportation in my riding is a necessity. I want to mention two important points here. One point concerns the only airport that we have in our riding which is situated in Charlo. A number of years ago under the first Conservative regime it closed the weather station at that airport. It also has been trying to reduce the flight service station. They have cut back one ship.
I would like to point out two things with regard to those two cuts. One is that there has never been a major fatal accident at those airports before the removal of the weather station. But since the weather station has been removed there have been two flight accidents that have resulted in a loss of life. I cannot say that it can be blamed directly on the removal of the weather station but both were in inclement weather in the wintertime.
Adjournment Debate
I must also say that with regard to the FSS it is the only flight service station that is fully operational in a bilingual capacity from the station to the pilot in Atlantic Canada. We are seeing a removal or a cutdown of that FSS in terms of a reduction in hours. I must say that this Charlo airport also serves the Gaspe peninsula. It is very important that we maintain services at Charlo airport and maintain the funding so there is no reduction in funding.
The other point that I want to make with regard to transportation is that we have two major ports in the riding. They are the port of Dalhousie and the port of Belledune. These are very well known internationally yet there have been no real federal initiatives. There has been money put into both ports by the federal government to improve the facilities from time to time. Both ports were developed under Liberal governments but there is something missing. There is no clear-cut strategy. With a region suffering from 18.5 per cent unemployment I would suggest that-


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



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour tonight to raise and to discuss briefly a question which I asked the minister on October 28.

It concerned the question of the limousine and taxi industry servicing Pearson International Airport.
As the transport critic I repeatedly met with the taxi and limousine association. A major area of concern is the incredible rate of increase charged by the federal Ministry of Transport in the annual licence fees that cab and limo operators have to pay. The increase as of April was on average 500 per cent for taxis. That went up from $1,000 to $4,200 per year. For limos it went from $1,100 to $6,000. That is only the licence. Consider the cost of the upkeep of the car, the gasoline costs, the insurance

December 2, 1991
Adjournment Debate
costs and paying any additional driver that may drive that limo or cab for the remainder of that portion of the day. That is the expense of the person behind the wheel.
In very short order we have an industry that is simply becoming uncompetitive and the additional costs of running that cab and that limo is subsequently passed on to the users who are the people who land and take off at the airports.
They are having to pay incredible rates from Pearson either to downtown metropolitan Toronto or anywhere else in the metro Toronto and area region.
Therefore, what the association has been asking for is a rollback. It is willing to accept some moderate increase in terms of its licence fees which have not been touched in the last number of years. It admits that, but there has been an increase overnight of some 500 per cent in the passenger volume, according to the manager of the airport. That is down some 5 to 7 per cent for the first time since 1982.
We have had additional permits granted because of Terminal 3 which does not generate any new traffic. It just splits the traffic three ways rather than two ways. We have drivers going out of business, losing the opportunity of continuing their livelihood and having the inability to put food on their tables. There is a great turnover in that business.
The same thing to a lesser degree is happening at the Montreal and Vancouver airports. Therefore, on October 28,1 asked the minister if he would agree to have a rollback. He suggested in the body of his answer that had already been done. That is false.
He wrote me a letter several days after confirming that the rollback had not taken place. All the government froze is a further increase on top of the 500 per cent.
We are saying that we are in the middle of a recession. Airport numbers are down. We have passengers paying incredible rates to get from point a to point b. We have a limousine industry which is a monopoly and which needs to be looked into.
Therefore I ask the parliamentary secretary to right an incredible wrong.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the concerns of the taxi
and limousine industry regarding the increases mentioned have been considered. Everything possible has been done to accommodate these concerns.
With respect to permits to date, 323 taxi and 236 limousine permits have been issued to operators for providing service at Pearson International Airport. In 1989 six additional limousine permits were issued for accessible vehicles but no fees were charged.
With respect to fees after years of discussion with the airport's taxi and limousine industry and the municipal representatives, a fee increase proposal was approved for April 1, 1991.
This was the first time since 1976, that is the first time in 15 years, that there had been any significant change in fees. The new fees reflect the business opportunity available to airport limousine and taxi operators.
With the opening of terminal 3 at Pearson airport, airport officials had proposed the issuance of an additional 50 taxi and 100 limousine permits. The additional permits were intended to continue the high level of service provided at terminals 1 and 2.
The airport taxi and limousine permit holders objected despite the years of consultation. Following the further meeting with representatives of the airport taxi and limousine operators which was also attended by the mayor of the city of Mississauga, additional permits and fee increases were reconsidered.
In September 1991 the Minister of Transport addressed both concerns by agreeing that there would be no further fee increases until April 1993. Further increases in fees will be based on the percentage increase in flat rate taxi and limousine tariffs established by the city of Mississauga.
There can be no rollback of the April 1991 fees, however, as the department must still recognize its fiscal responsibility and this point has also been made by the Auditor General.
With respect to new permits, it was decided that none would be issued until July 1992. The issuance of new permits will be based on a needs formula recommended in a Touche Ross report, presently being refined by airport officials.
December 2, 1991

Further discussions are planned with the airport taxi and limousine industry. Airport officials have committed to conducting a study of the airport ground transportation industry before any further adjustments are considered.


FISHERIES
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to return to the September 16 debate.
I look forward this evening to hearing from the government just exactly what it plans to do to remedy the illegal boardings, seizures, kidnappings and cargo thefts that took place in relation to seven Canadian fishing vessels in Dixon Entrance during this past summer.
In 1989, when the Fonzie and the Viscount, two Canadian fishing vessels, ran into similar kinds of illegal boardings and illegal arrests and illegal removals from Canada, the then Secretary of State for External Affairs, the present Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs, and then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, the present Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, did provide legal assistance in advance of any trial proceedings in the United States in relation to these vessels, something that has yet to take place from the two new ministers, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The question that I asked was a very clear and straightforward one. I quote from Hansard, page 2157:
Would the minister explain to Canadians why the government has refused to lay charges against those members of the United States military who illegally seized Canadian vessels and forcibly removed Canadian citizens from Canada to the United States?
The Secretary of State for External Affairs said:
We protested publicly and strongly and we beefed up our own surveillance on the other coast -
That does not get to the bottom of it. Increasing surveillance off of Atlantic Canada does not assist fishermen on the Pacific coast. The U.S. Coast Guard continued to come inside Canada illegally. I raised an emergency debate in relation to the U.S. Coast Guard vessel Liberty and the Eliza Joye. That vessel was detained a mile inside Canada. When the Canadian fisheries vessel Lewis Reef officers attempted to come on board the Canadian vessel a mile inside Canada, the
Adjournment Debate
military crew of the Coast Guard Liberty told Canadian enforcement offices they could not come on board a Canadian fishing vessel inside Canada, contrary to Canadian law, contrary to international law.
What did the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans have to say to the city of Prince Rupert? He sent it a letter dated November 21. It arrived November 26 in Prince Rupert and it says:
The U.S. Coast Guard should not have made their arrests in Canada's internal waters south of the A-B line. The Canadian government reacted quickly to the arrests and made clear to the U.S. authorities-both orally and in writing-that American arrests of Canadian fishing vessels in these waters were unacceptable. This action was taken to protect Canada's sovereignty and is not, of course, intended to provide an escape route for Canadian vessels if the U.S. authorities claim they have violated U.S. law in undisputed U.S. waters.
This is a clear case of the enforcement authorities of Canada not proceeding to lay charges under the Criminal Code of Canada as is required in every other situation. There should be charges of theft, forcible confinement, kidnapping, illegal boarding, illegal seizure.
These are extremely serious indictable offences. I call upon the government to get with it. There are still many months and in some cases many years left on the time clock to lay charges, but charges should always be laid as freshly and as competently as they possibly can.
My constituents I think share the view I have expressed in this Chamber before that there is some kind of grisly tyranny of deception, misinformation and treason taking place when the U.S. military can come inside of Canada, can illegally board Canadian vessels, can illegally seize the captain and the crew, can steal the cargo and leave without any charges being laid.
I call upon the government to lay those charges against the U.S. military and to prosecute to the absolute limit of the law.


Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and to Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Although I have only two minutes, Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer all those questions. It will not be easy, but I will conclude within the time allotted to me.

December 2, 1991
Adjournment Debate
It is Canada's long-standing position that the waters of Dixon Entrance are internal waters of Canada. The United States disputes this, claiming a portion of these waters is subject to their jurisdiction.
This summer four Canadian fishing vessels were arrested by the U.S. Coast Guard in the Dixon Entrance south of the so-called A-B line, which Canada maintains is the international maritime and land boundary. The United States has alleged that these vessels were fishing in undisputed U.S. waters, north of the A-B line.
We made strong diplomatic representations to the United States in each one of these cases, protesting actions which we regard as contrary to international law and unacceptable to Canada. As a result of these protests, all of the vessels were promptly released and in the case of one of the vessels, the Eliza Joye, no charges were laid. Fines were levied by the United States in the other three cases.
We have impressed upon the United States the need to avoid these types of incidents in the future. If U.S. authorities have evidence that Canadian vessels are fishing north of the A-B line, we believe that a warning should be issued.
We have a long history of working to manage our fisheries relations with the United States along all of our borders, including Dixon Entrance. Our approach has been to protest these breaches of Canadian sovereignty and to ensure the safest possible conditions for our fisherman. There is no doubt that the United States has received this message loud and clear.
The hon. member also raised the question of U.S. submarine traffic, but my time has run out. In closing, once again I assure my hon. colleague that Canada continues as always to maintain that Dixon Entrance is part of its internal waters.
[English)


PORT OF HALIFAX
Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, when will the government realize that if it wishes to speak the language of competitiveness it must learn the language of transportation, and that if it talks of transportation then it must talk about the port of Halifax?
Many times this fall I have asked this government to take some action to help save the major source of the
Atlantic economy which is the port of Halifax. The government has answered with apathy, rising repeatedly to pass off the problem as one of overcapacity or to tell me that it would get back to me.
I am here to tell this government that Atlantic Canadians have had seven years of "we will get back to you" from this government, and we have had enough.
How many studies will land on the desk of the minister before he figures out that it is his policies and those of his colleagues that have put our port at a serious disadvantage in relation to its competitors?
The latest study which a damning indictment of the government's apathy initiative is from Ports Canada, and I quote from its key conclusion:
To restore the Canadian railway industry's competitiveness vis-avis the U.S., government should adjust their fiscal and regulatory policies, including reduced fuel and property taxes, increased rates of capital cost allowance and allow for more abandonment of uneconomic rail infrastructure.
I want this government to announce immediately that it is moving to amend the National Transportation Act in order to conform to the recommendations of its own study.
Lower the tax burden that puts our American competitors at a nearly five to one advantage. Call in the head of CN Rail and ask why that Crown corporation is not doing more for the taxpayers of the region to bring the lines back.
Why does it not actively promote Halifax in foreign ports? Why is there no action for an entire decade of the 1980s when it was clear that Americans were going deeply into double stack service?
Further, I want the government to initiate an immediate consultation process that will bring decision makers from the municipal, provincial and federal fields together with industry leaders to formulate a recovery strategy. Too much time has already been wasted. If we work together we can ensure that what we will have to do is not done too little too late.
Why does the government have to apply its wrongheaded cost recovery strategy to shipping when it is so clear that neither other sectors of the industry nor our competitors will be doing the same thing? Cost recovery is a laudable theory, as long as everyone is playing by the same rules on the same level playing field. Let us finally get our act together.

It will require political will on the part of the government, a new and improved attitude that will encourage the fact that we in Halifax have the world's finest natural harbour. That plus some legislative draftsmanship is what we are asking for from this government. After that just let the people who work in the port of Halifax do what we have done best for 250 years.


Lee Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the difficulties presently facing the port of Halifax are a manifestation of the highly competitive global trading environment within which all our major ports are operating. While it is true that some lines have announced a reduction or termination of service at their ports, other lines have indicated a new or renewed commitment to the port based on increase tonnage.
In January, NOL and NYK lines are expected to begin calling at the port. In addition, some of the lines that have remained at the port will increase frequency of services. Meanwhile it is the duty of all levels of government to do that which they can reasonably do to ensure and enhance our national and international linkages of which the ports are an integral part.
I have spoken on this issue before. I do not think the member wants me to list again all of the efforts of the local port, of Canada Ports Corporation, of the municipal government and of the railway, all in co-operation with the federal and provincial governments. She has heard it all before and she continues to be negative and to focus on the negative while others are working to promote the port. We are working together. I wish the hon. member for Halifax would get on board.
One thing the hon. member has not given me the opportunity to mention was the province's announcement of setting up a task force under the Hon. Gerald Regan to inquire into ways to assist the competitiveness of the port of Halifax. The task force has now announced its membership drawn heavily from the Halifax community who will, I am sure, well represent the concerns of the region.
I would also like to point out that the province of Nova Scotia has consistently assisted the movement of rail cargo through the province and that it remains the only province which assesses no excise tax on locomotive fuel,
Adjournment Debate
an element which has been consistently identified with contributing to the cost burden of the railways.
The Halifax situation has served to focus the Department of Transport on the entire question of intermodal-ism in Canada and the importance of container competitiveness to not just the major ports but to the nation as a whole.
The department is carefully monitoring the situation, examining ways in which the present intermodal links in the Canadian distribution chain can be made more effective and competitive. That is why Canada Ports Corporation as a federal agency is trying to facilitate a longer term co-operation between container ports and the railways to enhance the attractiveness of Canadian container routings in general and with the port of Halifax in particular.


MANUFACTURING INDUSTRY
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, one afternoon during the 1988 election campaign I knocked on the door of the Hession family who live on Ellswick Road in the Parkview Hills neighbourhood of East York in metropolitan Toronto.
Michael Hession answered the door and he told me that he worked for the Colgate-Palmolive Canada Incorporated company. He was very much concerned about what Colgate-Palmolive would do if the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement came into effect. He was concerned that the plant might close, that is the plant where he worked on Colgate Avenue in Toronto, and that the operations might be moved to the United States as a result of that free trade agreement. Of course, if that happened, he would lose his job and so would the many others who worked at that plant.
Mr. Speaker, I know you would understand those concerns and I understood those concerns as well. Prior to election day November 21, 1988, just over three years ago now, I made some in-depth inquiries of our own officials with the Department of International Trade and the Minister for International Trade at the time. I was assured at that time that Colgate-Palmolive had absolutely no intention of closing its doors and moving to the United States. Whether or not we had a free trade agreement with United States was immaterial, I was told; absolutely not, Colgate-Palmolive assured us that it had no intention of making that move.

Adjournment Debate
I told Mr. Hession that and as you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, he was somewhat skeptical. However, he told me that he had faith and he had confidence in me regardless of what might happen and that he was going to support me.
From time to time after the election I continued to make inquiries because that conversation that afternoon with Mr. Hession haunted me. I continued to make those inquiries of our own department. I continued to make those inquiries of Colgate-Palmolive, and on each and every occasion I was assured that Colgate-Palmolive had absolutely no intention of leaving this country. It was here to stay. It was going to stay in that plant on Colgate Avenue in Toronto; no question about it.
Just about three months ago now, at the beginning of September of this year, Colgate-Palmolive announced that it would be closing its plant on Colgate Avenue in Toronto, moving 250 jobs to the United States. As you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, one of the first things I thought of when I got that call was Mr. Hession. I called him up and he told me that American management had come in and cavalierly announced that it was closing down the plant, moving it to the United States, moving those jobs to the United States. Of course what a horrendous shot that was to Mr. Hession and all the others who worked at that plant.
I contacted Colgate-Palmolive myself and was told it was too bad, that it was not just a Canada-U.S. decision. It involved world-wide operations. It was a decision based on global efficiency. Costly plants had to be updated. There was extra capacity in the United States, so it was being closed down and their operation was being moved to the United States.
Not much consolation for Mr. Hession or his family or those 249 other families involved.
That is just one example of many cases of a similar nature that has Canada and-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I apologize but your time is over.


Mr. Andre Plourde (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of International TVade):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this
opportunity to respond to the hon. member for whom I have a great deal of respect. In 1984, the Agenda for Economic Renewal set out this government's strategy to put in place the policies and programs designed for Canada's long-term benefit.
Measures such as tax reform and expanded trade opportunities have enabled our manufacturing sector to compete on a more level playing field free from unnecessary and unproductive intervention by government.
First, the removal of the former federal sales tax has been important for Canadian business. The old federal sales tax offered a clear competitive advantage to foreign manufacturing concerns and was a silent killer of jobs.
And, second the Free Trade Agreement with the United States has afforded the Canadian manufacturing industry an unparalleled and historic opportunity for open and equal access to a market of 250 million people. Canadians are already seeing the positive results of this agreement. The value of all Canadian exports to the U.S. has increased by nearly $8 billion since 1988, to a total of $110.3 billion in 1990. This means greater output for our manufacturing sector and more jobs for Canadians.
It should be pointed out that the Canadian manufacturers have endorsed the actions of the Government of Canada in these areas. They recognized that the removal of the former federal sales tax and the implementation of the free trade agreement have improved their prospects for future growth. Despite these achievements there is more work to be done. This government will soon launch and initiative to invite all Canadians to fashion a new agenda for our future growth and prosperity.
All Canadians, including business, labour, educators and social action groups, will be encouraged to participate in a dialogue leading.


EDUCATION
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I hope that my friend who will be answering my grievance will cast his notes aside and speak from the bottom of his heart.

Adjournment Debate
In September I asked: How can you cut funding to education, close employment centres on campus and continue to talk about competitiveness, productivity and the fostering of a climate conducive to a learning culture? When you look at the facts, here is what you see.

If you look at the cumulative decisions that the government has made from 1986 to 1995, you will find there are 9 billion to 10 billion fewer dollars-not million, billion-for education, that there is less for training and retraining, in spite of the fact that we have gone through a Canada-U.S. trade agreement that has demanded all kinds of adjustments, in spite of the fact there are almost 4.5 million people who are unemployed as we speak tonight, 2 million people are on social welfare, and 1.8 million people who will be fed by food banks this year.
What has happened to training and retraining? They promised to double the investment. We used to be at 1.40 gross domestic productivity, half of what our major competitors are. Now we are down to 1.20 and we have cut science and technology and the government has imposed a 3 per cent tax on student aid.
I cannot believe the insensitivity of it. They have cut student centres on campus at a period when student employment was around 20 per cent. Student debt has risen and gone right out of sight. We are talking about people with debts of $25,000 to $50,000 increasingly frequently.
I was talking to a student just last week who was very close to being $50,000 in debt. Why? What has been the impact?
Tuition fees have sky-rocketed in the last decade. It is a 120 per cent increase, most of which has happened since 1986. We do not talk a lot about incidental fees. Another important component to students is these little fees that they have to pay for various services, and what have you at university.
Accommodation costs for food and lodging are right out of sight and those are a large proportion of a student's budget. What has happened? It is because of these cuts and reductions, and the increases that the government has off-loaded on to the provinces to the universities and to the students.
What offends me most is that it boasts of controlling expenditures.

It is as if I passed all my debts on to my wife, my children and my neighbour and then said: "Look, I reduced my debt". Is that good? No, it is not, it borders on dishonesty.
I am going to submit to you another point.

The government talks about how much it spent. Look at what it does. It looks at the cash transfers. When it talks about how much it invests in education, it looks at cash transfers and tax point transfers.
There is the double standard. I would simply like to complete my remarks by saying that I hope my colleague is going to speak from the bottom of his heart to answer honestly my question which is: How can you cut funding and still talk at length about the things you want to achieve in education? There is an obvious contradiction there.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I understand how my hon. colleague feels. I want to talk to him from the heart. Indeed I have already discussed this with him and I talked to him from the heart.
Unfortunately we will not be able to make great declarations in just two minutes. But the part that comes from the heart has to do with the fact that I also have a child that is presently attending the University of Montreal. I can assure you that since loans were not repaid in the past, because of the negligence of the banks-the government guarantees these loans so the banks do not make any efforts in that sense-we are lucky that there are still loans for students today.
I would like to remind my hon. colleague that the 3 per cent cost may represent some $80 over $2,700 for 200,000 students. This may be the assurance that this Canadian program for the students will continue to provide efficiently the small amount that these 200,000 students benefit from each year.
I will now give a few statistics to my hon. colleague. This program guarantees financial institutions that the loans they grant to post-secondary students will be repaid to them, and I add this which is not in my notes but which comes from the heart: the banks do not have to make any effort since the government guarantees those loans.

Adjournment Debate
In 1990-91 no less than $632 million were granted in loans to Canadian students. In concrete terms, the guarantee means that the government must pay back the loan if the student does not do so. In fact the banks do not make any efforts to go after the students, because the loans are guaranteed by someone else. That also means that the recovery expenses are charged to the government.
Our government must deal with the fact that the costs related to the guarantee given on those loans and to interests, payments have increased by $435 million. To this more than substantial increase you have to add the
$879 million represented by all the loans receivable by the government.
I believe that everyone will agree that the government cannot indefinitely face these constant increases without increasing its own revenue. Therefore, the 3 per cent is aimed at making up for a part of the program cost increase and perhaps at ensuring the continuation of the program.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to have been adopted. Therefore, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, December 3,1991