1991-06-17

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena), seconded by Mr. Caccia moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of preserving and protecting in its natural state at least 12 per cent of each of Canada's ecosystems.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for seconding the motion. The motion reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of preserving and protecting in its natural state at least 12 per cent of each of Canada's ecosystems.
With the assistance of Kevin McNamee of the Canadian Nature Federation, an amendment will be proposed by my hon. friend, Mr. Martin, to clarify the shared responsibility so that it would read:
- 12 per cent of Canada by working co-operatively with the provincial and territorial governments and assisting them to complete the protected area networks by the year 2000.
It is important that that kind of clarification be made, and I accept it as a good, proper and helpful amendment.
I trust that this amendment is such that the motion will be put to the House and passed today, perhaps by all-party consent. It is crucial that the dormant political process be invigorated by an all-party resolution which will lead to at least protecting 12 per cent of Canada before the end of this century.
Canada's total lands are 9,922,000 square kilometres and our 34 national parks total 182,272 square kilometres. Our provincial and territorial parks, ecological reserves and wilderness areas of which at this moment there are 1,160, total 138,000 square kilometres, substantially less than what is presently in our national parks system.
Of those 1,160 such protected sites at the provincial and territorial level, there are only 43 designated as wilderness areas for a total of 8,680 square kilometres. If you add up all the so-called protected areas, which is 6.3 per cent of Canada or just over 320,000 square kilometres, and take out the national, provincial and territorial parks which allow logging, hunting, mining and other kinds of activities, that total drops to just 254,000 square kilometres or 2.6 per cent of our national land base.
A federal task force many years ago confirmed that an opportunity to set aside lands and complete our national parks system will be gone by the year 2000, due almost entirely to land alienations, roads, electrical transmission lines, hydroelectric facilities, forest harvesting, mining, urban sprawl, and all of those other land uses to which the lands of this huge country are put.
In 1979, some 12 years ago, cabinet approved the goal of setting aside and establishing one park in each of our natural regions. There are 39 terrestrial natural regions and 29 marine natural regions in Canada. The existing 34 national parks represent 21 of the 39 land regions or 182,272 square kilometres which is 1.8 per cent of Canada.
All this area is not protected. For example, logging is going on at this time by Daishowa Canadian Forest Products in Wood Buffalo, Alberta, our largest national park and in the Northwest Territories.
The plans to complete five new national parks by 1995 will leave 13 to be completed in the five years between 1995 and the year 2000. I think I can aptly demonstrate that the government is going to have to allocate more
[Stage Direction]
June 17, 1991
Private Members' Business
substantial person time, and perhaps more substantial capital in order to achieve realistically the completion of our national parks system within the next nine years.
Canada now has 213 endangered species that are either in danger of becoming, or are already extinct. Twenty species were added this year, including some of the most noble creatures that have ever existed on this continent such as the grizzly bear, the polar bear and the Peary caribou. These are now also endangered and up to this moment neither the provinces nor the territories have taken steps to deal directly with recommendations made by biologists in terms of those three species. Clearly these include the establishment of protective zones and a dramatic reduction in pressures on them from both industrial activity and human activity.
Within the green plan we see the promise to, by the year 2000, establish three national marine parks between now and 1995 and three more by the year 2000, including the South Moresby Gwaii-Haanas Marine Park, Saguenay and one other, leaving some 21 marine natural regions unrepresented beyond the year 2000.
Many people ask where the 12 per cent figure comes from. It comes from international scientific consensus, as is found in the 1987 Brundtland report, the World Commission on the Environment and Development. In chapter 6 we find:
Nearly 4 per cent of the earth's land is managed explicitly to conserve species and ecosystems and all but a small handful of countries have national parks.
One then goes on to chapter 6-18, point 72 which points out:
Since 1970, the networks have expanded in extent by more than 80 per cent, around two-thirds of which are in the Third World. But a great deal more remains to be done; a consensus of professional opinion suggests that the total expanse of protected areas needs to be at least tripled if it is to constitute a representative sample of Earth's ecosystems.
So there you have one of the most extensive world wide reports ever done, and done by a United Nations body chaired by Prime Minister Brundtland, which has concluded that at minimum, we should set aside 12 per cent.
This report was endorsed on September 29, 1988 by Canada's present Prime Minister. In his remarks before the United Nations we find in about the middle of his speech, the following:
The world is facing an environmental crisis of unparalleled magnitude. Nature is sending us an urgent message that we ignore at our peril. The signs of this crisis are all around us- shortages of timber, exhausted soil, desertification, depleted fish stocks, seals dying in the North Sea, beluga whales washing ashore in the St. Lawrence river. Some even maintain that we have reached a point where the survival of mankind is at risk.
Prime Minister Brundtland, Chairman of the World Commission on Environment and Development, has said that the threat to our environmental security is "second only to nuclear war".
Those remarks by our present Prime Minister were picked up by the two past and the now present Ministers of Environment. We find in the published green plan, which was released here in Ottawa December 11, 1990, a section called Section 3, Special Spaces and Species, and an allocation of $175 million over the next six years for protecting unique ecological areas. It takes as a goal, and I quote: "To set aside as protected space, 12 per cent of Canada." It goes through some of the points I have been covering, such as the need to establish five new national parks by 1996 and to negotiate agreements for the remaining 13 parks which are required to complete the terrestrial parks system by the year 2000. Many people have asked me and I am sure have asked other members, what does that commitment mean? Is it deliverable? And what are those areas that are still unrepresented? Very few Canadians realize that it is scientifically recognized that there are 13 natural bioregions, 39 natural systems in Canada, and that only 21 of those 39 are presently represented in our national parks system, such as our first park, Banff National Park created in 1885.
I quote from the January 31, 1991, letter from the Minister of the Environment on these very points:
As you know, Environment Canada's recently released Green Plan provides for the establishment of at least five new national parks.by 1996 and for the negotiation of the agreements for the remaining 13 parks by the year 2000. It also provides for the establishment of three new national marine parks by 1996, with an additional three by the year 2000.
It goes on to say:
June 17, 1991
[Stage Direction]
Within the next few months, my department also plans to release a follow-up action plan setting out specific strategies and target dates for establishing national parks within each of the 18 unrepresented natural regions.
That was in January and they have not yet been made public.
Here are the terrestrial regions that are still unrepresented, regions that have active park proposals: Region 15, Bluenose Lake; Region 17, East Arm; Region 27, Churchill; Region 36, Banks Island; and Region 37, Baffin Island.
Regions with currently inactive park proposals are Region 16, Wager Bay; Region 21, Mealey Mountains; Region 24, the Torngat Mountains.
Regions with representative areas that are identified natural areas of Canadian significance, but in which further study is required before a park proposal can be identified are: Region 3, Fraser-Chilcotin Junction area and the Churn Creek area; Region 7, the Spatsizi Plateau and Mount Edziza areas, Kluane/Aishihik area, Yukon River/Ogilvie Mountains area; Region 14, the Long Point area and Little Limestone Lake area; Region 22, the Richmond Gulf area; Region 25, Leaf Bay area and Nastapoka Islands; Region 38, the Bjorne Peninsula area and Bathurst Island.
The regions with regional studies that are not yet complete are: Region 2, the Strait of Georgia Lowlands in British Columbia; Region 20 the Laurentian Boreal Highlands basically running from Ottawa to Quebec City; Region 23 the Whale River region; and Region 28 which is northeast of Churchill, known as Southampton.
Quebec is a particular case that I know you would be interested in, Mr. Speaker, because the Whale River region which is now being studied is the area that is being proposed for flooding by the Great Whale hydroelectric project known to many people as the first part of James Bay II. The flooding from James Bay I and James Bay II is a staggering 25,834 square kilometres, 2 per cent of the entire land base of the province of Quebec. Six times as much land will be flooded by this one project as is protected in all of the federal and provincial parks in that entire province. It is really quite staggering the amount of work to be done on both provincial and national parks strategies, to say nothing of the 12 per cent in our second largest province.
Private Members' Business
The first debate and vote there ever has been on 12 per cent and on the national parks system took place in this House on February 5, 1990, and that motion said the following:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should move to complete the national parks system (land and marine) by the year 2000 and should implement the recommendation of the World Commission on Environment and Development, (Brundtland Report) that Canada protect at least 12 per cent of land and marine zones
Sadly, that was not about to pass through this Chamber. Since that time there have been various suggestions that the wording could have been clarified at least in terms of the 12 per cent. That is going to be done today by Mr. Martin, my friend on environmental matters, to give the House an opportunity to express itself morally on an issue that is truly one of survival.
There are few if any biologists that I have spoken to in the years since Brundtland who disagree that 12 per cent should be the floor-hardly the ceiling but it should be the floor-because we are losing right now about 20,000 species per year that are becoming entirely extinct, entirely related to the activities of humanity. As we lose those species, most of them are being lost in tropical areas because of the proliferation of life in the canopies particularly of jungle areas.
As I said earlier in my remarks, we have lost 20 species in Canada and 20 have been added on to the endangered species list in our country, great creatures such as the grizzly. I mean, how is it possible in a country like ours? There isn't even one area where grizzlies are specifically protected in a sanctuary in the whole of a great country such as this, a country that is massive by the standards of anywhere else in the world. Even the United States has 8.1 per cent of its land base protected, due in large part to states such as Alaska where 37 per cent has been set aside in perpetuity in their national park system.
Even poorer countries in these years leading up to and post-Brundtland have adopted this concept, with a real understanding of the benefits, both in terms of speci-ation and biological diversity. They also realize some of the things that can come with that for poorer countries such as Tanzania, which has set aside 17 per cent of its land base to protect the larger mammals that are resident there such as lions and elephants that people want to see, but also to protect their grasslands and some of the unique species they have there.
[Stage Direction]
Private Members' Business
I am prepared to listen today, hopefully later this morning, to the minister but also to my colleague so that we have an understanding that there is a responsibility for the territories and for the provinces. There is also a very large and leading responsibility for the federal government to get on with the job of isolating those areas, in a land use sense, that are the vital core areas for various species.
We are continuing to see various migratory bird species-we have about 11 right now-that are in real difficulty because of loss of habitat, loss of core feeding areas along their flyways so that as they are coming north or going south, there are huge areas where they are either short of feed or having to operate on reduced feed.
It is very important that all of our biological systems be linked so that travel ways for animals and plants permit them to have an opportunity to continue to migrate within the natural systems, and also that birds and other beings and creatures such as insects have the kind of environment about them that they require in order to get about and to survive on this planet.
There has been ongoing spin as well put to the debate that the federal responsibility may be almost done, that we are at 1.8 per cent, and by the time we get to 3 per cent, that would basically be the federal responsibility. I do not opt into that proposal because, as I pointed out in my remarks, the provincial and territorial systems as they stand are considerably smaller now than the existing federal system. In the only really large national survey, which was done in 1987 by Gallup, 96 per cent of Canadians support strong government action to protect wilderness.
In that year Canadians spent $5.1 billion on wildlife and park-related activities. It has gone up substantially each year since, both among Canadians and among visitors to our country. Canadians when asked a very simple question about environmental issues, certainly to a majority, but to an ever-increasing majority, look to Ottawa, not to the provincial or territorial capitals for leadership in particularly the designation and protection of species and of lands.
So my hope is, through this debate and through the amended wording, to make clear that this is a shared
responsibility. Although the provincial responsibilities are large, they have not been doing them. I use as an example the studies that are going on in the Whale Region by the federal government now that, should James Bay I and II proceed as planned, an area six times as large as everything that is protected in Quebec would be flooded by that one project.
Clearly in terms of the definition within politicians' minds at the provincial and territorial levels, I think the federal government and all the parties in this House have a very big job to do to convince our provincial and territorial colleagues that they must work hard to provide add-on lands and programs that are suitable to dealing with those who live in those areas so that they can in fact find benefits from these kinds of land designations, which are often ballyhooed as being something that causes a loss of jobs. That is hardly the case when one looks at the studies that have been done, not just throughout North America, but in other jurisdictions. Governments have planned properly for those land designations so that aboriginal people, nearby communities and people who had residual occupations tied to those lands, are not unduly or unfairly disrupted in their activities.
In concluding, I hope that today's debate on Motion 330, as amended, will be a successful one and that both the Official Opposition and the government will take the opportunity to endorse what I believe is a much-needed moral voice from this House, that we had better get on with this task. If we were given the option now of setting aside Banff National Park with its size and grandeur, I just wonder whether or not we would have the intellectual and moral girth to do so. I hope that today's debate demonstrates that this House has the foresight to start moving to set aside at least the 12 per cent that future generations need to survive and enjoy this country the way we have.
Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle-Emard):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to a motion that is vital to Canada and to our environment, and I want to congratulate the hon. member for Skeena on the speech he just made. The Liberal Party wholeheartedly supports the campaign to protect threatened spaces and ecosystems. We must complete the national parks network by
June 17, 1991

establishing at least one protected, representative region in each of the 39 terrestrial regions by the year 2000, and in each of the 29 marine regions by the year 2010. Twenty-one land regions are already represented within the national parks system, but to complete the system, an additional 18 parks will be needed.
Even with these additions, Mr. Speaker, only 3 per cent of Canadian territory will be protected, while our target is 12 per cent.

Therefore, we look forward to the government announcing a strategy for promoting protection of the remaining 9 per cent.
This will entail working co-operatively with provincial and territorial governments to ensure that each of Canada's natural regions is protected. If 12 per cent of the lands and waters are to be protected, areas will have to include not only national parks, but provincial parks, territorial parks, conservation areas and heritage rivers.
This will require significant commitments from provincial and territorial governments, as well as the federal government. They may well need financial assistance. The $175 million tagged in the green plan for special spaces and species will have to be released. The short field season means that any delays now suffered in authorizations and promotion translates into much longer delays as far as the identification of new parks and new conservation areas.
If you will forgive a personal note, Mr. Speaker, I am looking forward this summer to tripping the Taft in northern British Columbia and indeed, in the member's riding. I may even have the occasion, after it is all over, to meet some Liberals in the member's riding. If not, I look forward to meeting a number of NDPers who I can convert.
I mention this because the Taft should clearly be designated as a heritage river. Yet British Columbia and Alberta have not joined the Canadian Heritage River System.
One would hope that this and so many other issues, such as the Banks Island National Park proposal could be rectified as soon as possible.
Private Members' Business
The member for Skeena was quite eloquent in talking about the absolute need for protecting by diversity another species.
We in Canada have a tremendous responsibility to the world. Indeed, we have a fiduciary responsibility to the world, not only to protect the vast land mass which we have been so lucky to have inherited, but indeed to show leadership to the rest of the world. How can this country stand up in the international forum and speak of the need for other countries to protect their areas, especially the underdeveloped countries, when we in this country have not taken the decisive steps that are required here.
I regret very much that my time is limited. However, it is with unequivocal pleasure for these and many other reasons that I would move the following amendment:
I move, seconded by Mr. Caccia, the hon. member for Davenport:
That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the expression "12 per cent" and by adding the following words:
"of Canada by working co-operatively with the provincial and territorial governments and assisting them to complete their protected area networks by the year 2000".


Mr. Friesen:: I do not raise this point of order to detract from either the remarks or the motion made by the members but I am just curious about the technicality of having the same member second the main motion as well as the amendment. Is that procedurally-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I apologize because Mr. Caccia seconded the motion moved by the hon. member for Skeena. On a point of order the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the member opposite and I would move, seconded by Mr. Vanclief, the member for Prince Edward-Hastings:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the expression "12 per cent" and by adding the following:
"of Canada by working co-operatively with the provincial and territorial governments and assisting them to complete their protected area networks by the year 2000"
I really am very grateful to the member opposite.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: During the next few minutes the Chair will consider the admissibility of the motion moved by the hon. member for LaSalle- Emard.

Private Members' Business
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I take pleasure in the opportunity to speak to this motion. I think that the subject matter of the motion is very apropos.
All Canadians need to be constantly reminded that this is an issue that has immediate import on their lives and even more so on the lives of their children and grandchildren if we are going to preserve the country and the ecosystems that are so important to us.
I say the subject matter is always pertinent. I think that the motion itself is redundant because the government has already announced its intentions to do exactly what the motion requires or requests the government to do. Second, the government has already taken action to indicate its intention to proceed with what it has already said it was going to do.
I point out to my friend from Skeena that there is no greater evidence than the announcement that was made two or three weeks ago by the Minister of the Environment. He came out to British Columbia to announce the Fraser plan in which the government is assigning $100 million to reclaim the Fraser. Now I know that is not specific to this motion in that it is not setting aside a new park or protecting a new ecosystem, but it is very urgent in the sense that it is an attempt to restore an ecosystem that is in danger. All I can say is that the action taken by the government and the Minister of the Environment indicates the seriousness with which the government takes the green plan and its intention to fulfil the commitment it has made within the programs of the Green Plan. So I say that the subject is never redundant, but the motion itself is.
It is always easy to speak in generalities on a subject like this. Everybody is in favour of protecting the environment and the ecosystems that are so important to us. It is much more difficult to be specific in dealing with these subjects. It is easy for the dowagers in New York City to speak about protecting the marine park in the Queen Charlottes and so forth.
I remember a debate that was held almost exactly a year ago in this House where we were debating the
importance of protecting the environment. The colleague of the member from Skeena, the member for Comox-Alberni, dwelt at length about the environmental issues facing the country and spoke, at length, about Temagami here in Ontario. However, he never once mentioned Carmanah in his own riding. Carmanah is probably the most discussed topic of the environment in British Columbia, but it never occurred to the member for Comox-Alberni that his position on the Carmanah Valley would be very important to the people of Canada, to know whether he really wanted to protect that valley or whether he wanted to see it logged. I am sure he does not want to see the valley logged, but his constituents themselves have asked where the member for Comox- Alberni stands on the subject of the Carmanah Valley. It is easy to speak in generalities. It is much more difficult to be specific about these issues.


Mr. Fulton:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not mean to break in on the member's time and I will be very brief. I would just like for the record to recognize that the Carmanah is not in the seat of the member for Comox-Alberni. It is in the seat of the member for Nanaimo.


Benno Friesen: To be specific, it is the constituents of the member from Alberni who work on the Franklin River project right next door to the Carmanah Valley and I think the member knows that. It is the constituents who are affected, the constituents of the member from Comox-Alberni.
Finally, on this particular topic, I just want to refer to the Brundtland report, the excellent report brought together a few years ago, beginning at chapter 2.
Madam Brundtland says: "Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It contains within it two key concepts, the concept of needs, in particular the essential needs of the world's poor to which over-riding priority should be given and the idea of limitations opposed by the state of technology and the social organization on the environment's ability to meet present and future needs."
Those are very, very important criteria that she establishes. So I concur with the hon. member from Skeena that the government should take a leadership role in this regard. I believe it already has done so. Canada's green plan clearly states that Canada's long-term goal is to set
June 17, 1991

aside as protected space 12 per cent of the country, a goal that must be shared by the provinces, the territories, private stewards and the federal government, as the two speakers who spoke before may have already recognized.
Furthermore, the green plan contains numerous initiatives that the federal government is prepared to take to accelerate progress to meet this goal. The completion of the country's system of national parks, which is one of the oldest and most renowned in the world, by the year 2000 is an example of the one of the green plan's special spaces and species projects which will contribute to meeting the 12 per cent target.
I am also of the opinion that there is some urgency in this matter because Canada's remaining wilderness is slowly but steadily being engulfed. The federal, provincial and territorial governments must act now before opportunities to create new protected areas are foreclosed forever.
Each government owes it to the next project, the most pristine areas within their respective systems of protected areas for the enjoyment and understanding of this and future generations of Canadians.
I might inject, however, that remarks like seemingly unrestrained logging in parks really do not add to the debate when we never define whether those logging activities are designed to deal with infested areas or over mature areas which are becoming a danger.
We need to define actually what we mean by logging in those areas. It is not good enough to say that there is logging going on.
I am pleased to report to this House that real progress is being made by this government. The Minister of the Environment is working hard with his provincial and territorial counterparts to create new national parks. His short list of priority candidates at this time include Banks Island, Baffin Island, Bluenose Lake, the east arm of Great Slave Lake and Wager Bay in the Northwest Territories, Old Crow flats in the Yukon, the Cape Churchill area in Manitoba and the Tomgat Mountains in the Newfoundland and Labrador area.
It would be useful at this time to briefly review the origin of the goal of setting aside 12 per cent of the country. I believe that the 12 per cent figure was
Private Members' Business
extrapolated from sections 1 and 72 in chapter 6 of Our Common Future, the Brundtland report.
This report, which is commonly referred to as the "Brundtland report" proposed a series of actions to halt the extinction of species and the irreversible degradation of ecosystems globally. The report noted that although nearly 4 per cent of the earth's land area was managed explicitly to conserve species and ecosystems, a great deal more remained to be done.
It went on to suggest that the total expanse of protected areas needed to be at least tripled, if it was to constitute a representative sample of the earth's ecosystems. The application of this goal to the Canadian context was pioneered by the World Wildlife Fund (Canada), one of the country's most prestigious non-government conservation organizations when it launched its 1989 "Endangered Spaces: The Future of Canada's Wilderness" campaign.
This 10-year campaign urges governments, industries, environmental groups and individual Canadians to take action on two key points; first, to integrate conservation practices or sustainable development into the management of lands and waters used for resource production; second, to protect a representative sample of the country's undisturbed natural areas so that a minimum 12 per cent of the country's area will be protected as wilderness.
The proposition that at least 12 per cent of the country be protected has generated considerable debate among government agencies, industry and conservation organizations. Many have made the point that there is no agreed upon formula or percentage for determining that a sufficient amount of natural heritage resources has been protected.
For example, whereas the Brundtland report recommends a target of 12 per cent, the UICN, the world conservation union notes in its report, From Strategy to Action of 1989 that if only 10 per cent of the earth's surface was devoted to protection, the trend for species and ecosystem depletion would be stemmed globally.
There are varying opinions about what the percentage figure ought to be. I simply want to underscore the fact that while this subject is always pertinent and never redundant, the motion is redundant because the government is committed to it, and the target should not be a specific percentage. The target should be what is necessary to preserve those ecosystems.

Private Members' Business


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I also would like to congratulate the most distinguished member for Skeena for his motion and my colleague for LaSalle-Emard for his amendment.
I cannot say the same about the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley. He twice declared the motion redundant, but found it nevertheless possible and necessary to speak for 10 minutes, thus demonstrating that the essence of the motion is not redundant at all.
Considering the record of the government to which he belongs, there is no motion that is redundant in the field of the environment and conservation.
I bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a paragraph from the Brundtland report which reads as follows: "The challenge facing nations today is no longer deciding whether conservation is a good idea, but rather how it can be implemented in the national interests and within the means available to each country." The member for Surrey-White Rock questions the desirability of a percentage and we should not invest too many energies on that question. Certainly it would be desirable to be very flexible on this subject in certain circumstances. But considering the pressures from development and the pressures from population growth, it seems essential that a percentage be set as a goal as a guideline and a percentage below which we should not go. Therefore the percentage becomes a very important policy guideline without which we would have a variety of different standards by continent and by nation, and we would in the end not achieve the goal put forward by the Brundtland report.
Mr. Speaker, in the green plan there is a commitment to 12 percent. The green plan states that 6.9 per cent of Canada's land is currently protected. There is a controversy though on that 6.9 and it has to be put on the record. The World Wildlife Fund in Canada has concluded that roughly 3.4 per cent of the Canadian land meets the required criteria. Therefore the statement made in the green plan by the government does not seem to be supported and verified by the World Wildlife Fund, which is perhaps the non-governmental organization most active in this particular field of conservation.
The debate offers an opportunity to raise some questions in relation to the present government activities and intentions. For instance, will the government, to which the member for Surrey-White Rock-South Langley belongs, announce a target date for completing the national marine park system? Will the system of national parks be completed by the year 2000, which will then allow us to reach at least 3 per cent of Canada's land area
When will the government announce a strategy for promoting the protection of the remaining 9 per cent?
Another point that ought to be raised in this connection is, when will the federal government provide the financial support that is needed in the territorial governments to assist them in establishing territorial parks so that the achievement of the 12 per cent goal is facilitated. For instance, regional development funds, will the government to which the hon. member belongs encourage provincial jurisdiction to contribute to the 12 per cent goal by contributing funds from regional development funds themselves?
There is also the question of Canadian heritage river systems, which is a phenomenal, positive program, initiated a long time ago and to which unfortunately British Columbia and Alberta do not belong. This is an opportunity to raise the question which goes beyond our jurisdiction as to when will British Columbia and Alberta enter this Canadian heritage river system. The federal government has a certain leverage to achieve that goal.
One also has to bring to the attention of the House the fact that there is in the green plan a commitment to $175 million for our special spaces and species. When will this fund be released? Obviously there will be competition for the use of this fund, and the sooner it is made available the better. We will know also how we can achieve the goal that the hon. member for Skeena and all of us have in mind.
Then there is the unfinished business of the Banks Island National Park proposal. The Park Service has been working on that agreement for some time, actually since 1978. Most if not all of the issues have been settled and what is missing at this stage is only cabinet approval.
June 17, 1991

Private Members' Business
When will cabinet find the time and the will to do that? As you can see from the case of this particular site, the Banks Island National Park, it takes years to create a national park. It is not a process that takes place overnight. Actually I would venture to say that since 1984 each and every national park that has been declared by the present government is the result of painstaking and intense work of the preceding government. So here is the opportunity to bring to a conclusion something that was initiated in 1978.
In connection with this motion, we have to make reference to the necessity of including in the National Parks Act the Canadian Landmarks Program. When we debated the act the last time, unfortunately the program was resisted and despite efforts at second reading in the House, it was turned down. Therefore, we are still facing the necessity of raising this point because the Canadian Landmarks Program is not included in the new revised parks policy that is presently being developed.
We would urge the government instead to include the landmarks program because it helps in a variety of ways. It is a way of promoting federal-provincial co-operation; it is a way of stimulating public participation. It is also a very important way of developing public education on the importance and the essence of our publicly owned land, national parks, and the role that they play for the recreation and the enjoyment of Canadians, and for the preservation of course of species and valuable land.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would say that we have here a unique opportunity that the government should seize today by not talking out this bill but by recognizing that the motion by the member for Skeena, as amended, is an expression of public opinion and reflects extremely well a priority in the minds of Canadians from sea to sea to sea. It is one that the government ought to take very seriously and respect, because what we are talking about here, as preceding speakers have already said, is spaces for future generations and a policy decision that has to be made now while it is possible to make it. There are certain continents where this kind of implementation of 12 per cent of a land mass cannot be made any longer. In Canada we still have that opportunity, and we hope that there is enough enlightenment on the government side and that no one will have the talking out of this motion on June 17, 1991, on his or her conscience.


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to a veiy important motion presented by the hon. member for Skeena who is to be commended for having tabled this motion in the House. This motion is useful because it gives us an opportunity to address one of the goals we as a government have included in the Green Plan. Among the Plan's various objectives, Section III mentions the target of preserving 12 per cent of our natural heritage by the year 2000. In fact, the hon. member for Davenport mentioned the budget for this project which totals $175 million. I must say we are delighted to hear opposition members making proposals that are in line with the government's as set forth in the Green Plan.
I know the hon. member for Skeena made the subject a priority on the Environment Committee of which he is a member, and I am sure that all members of this committee will want to consider this question and make recommendations to the government accordingly.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, the motion presented by the hon. member for Skeena regarding the advisability of protecting at least 12 per cent of Canada's ecosystems is a complex one. The federal government is not alone in implementing this objective to protect our ecosystems. The process will also require the co-operation of all provinces, municipalities and interest groups in Canada, including native people and the general public. This is a very complex subject and one that requires the co-operation of all groups in Canadian society. The hon. member says the federal government should set an example and show leadership. That is exactly what we are doing with the Green Plan, with projects at Parks Canada and the network of new national parks that Parks Canada wants to establish in the next few years.
The Canadian Parks Service-as was said earlier-intends to establish a national park for each of Canada's 39 terrestrial regions by the year 2000. At the present time, 21 of these regions are represented. It will take 18 more parks to complete the network of national parks. The Minister of the Environment is committed to creating at least 5 new national parks by 1996 and to negotiating agreements for 13 more parks by the year 2000, which means that we should be able to reach our goal by that time.

Private Members' Business
An important step in this direction was made when the government's plans for the national parks network were published in December 1990. This paper establishes the status of the parks in each terrestrial region and identifies those regions where new parks should be created. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, with the co-operation of the provinces and the territories, we are preparing an action plan that will determine specific strategies and timeframes for creating national parks in regions where none exist within their respective boundaries. The action plan should be ready this summer. The timeframe proposed by the Canadian Parks Service will, of course, require the support of the provinces and territories concerned, and the co-operation of residents living near the regions, as well as the co-operation of native people when their interests may be affected.
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member when he says that the situation is urgent. That is why I am happy to announce that the Canadian Parks Service is at this very moment considering 8 proposals for creating new national parks. The first one is located in Churchill, Manitoba. A feasibility study was started at the end of 1989, supervised by a joint task force consisting of representatives of federal, provincial and local authorities. This study was possible thanks to the active participation of local representatives. Although public consultation took place mainly in Churchill, there were also consultations with the neighbouring community of Gillam, with native bands with an interest in the region where the park is to be located, and other Manitobans. Native bands, especially, are now playing an active role in the evaluation process, and it seems the community in Churchill and native bands will soon be able to decide whether they are in favour of negotiating a federal-provincial agreement on the creation of a national park. If they are in favour, the Canadian Parks Service expects to finalize an agreement by 1991 or the beginning of 1992.
Among the proposals under consideration, five involve regions in the Northwest Territories, where representation is low. In the Western Arctic lowlands region, consultations with the people of Sachs Harbour about the possibility of creating a national park on Banks Island
are progressing satisfactorily. Sachs Harbour is the only village on the island, and the community would like to finalize an agreement on the park by the summer of
1991.
Mr. Speaker, you are signalling that it is time for me to finish. Perhaps I may just take a moment to remind you that apparently, Canada's national parks network covers 1.8 per cent of our territory. When it is completed, it is estimated that the network will cover about 3 per cent of Canada's territory. The hon. member will be glad to hear, however, that when other levels of government that have taken up this national challenge have competed their respective networks of parks, ecological reserves, wildlife sanctuaries and protected areas, Canada will be close to reaching its target of setting aside 12 per cent of its territory as protected areas, as proposed in the Brundtland Report and in Canada's Green Plan.
Mr. Speaker, I think Canada is making great strides towards protecting its rich natural heritage, and I am convinced that with the co-operation of all groups involved, we will be able to-


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I believe if you were to test the House you might find that there is unanimous consent for this to be deemed to have passed at the end of this debate. All members, government, opposition and myself have spoken in favour of the motion.


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


An hon. member:: No.


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

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
June 17, 1991



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tiiesday, June 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-20, an act to amend certain statutes to implement the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26,1991 be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to conclude the remarks I started the other day. When I was winding up I asked that the government remember not to make the hospitals, the universities and the colleges across this country the battleground with other provinces as they all run around looking for more dollars, trying to see how they are going to exist in the years ahead.
I listened to people talk about the proposed changes to our medical programs when I was in my constituency on the weekend. I know that in my constituency last week they had an open line radio show as many constituencies do. The topic of the conversation was the possible changes to medicare, by putting the responsibility on to the provinces to make sure that the standards were kept.
As I said the other day in my speech, in Prince Edward Island and the smaller provinces, it is going to be virtually impossible to maintain the standards that have been set over the last 25 years because they do not have the resources. They do not have the resources down there to do this, so either the taxes are going to become exorbitant or the services are going to be cut.
I do not believe, as I listened to the open line show, that Canadians are prepared to see these services cut. We must find a better way of doing this. We must, in the months and years ahead, be able to maintain this health care program that is the envy of the world. We must be able to do this.
I believe that the people of Canada are prepared to pay the necessary price to maintain our health care program. I do not believe that the provinces have the
Government Orders
resources to pick up these programs. So I ask the federal government to maintain this, to continue this program.
As I said the other day, we have a huge debt to pay, a huge deficit to pay. The people in the smaller provinces are prepared to do their part to pay that deficit, but they can only go so far. There is only so much money.
I realize and I say again, that there are many things that government, federal government in particular, must be involved in. They are medicare, post-secondary education and transportation. I have said that all through the piece. I believe that in a country as diversified, as huge with such a small population as we have, the federal government must keep a presence in these areas. I ask again that we not make battlegrounds between the hospitals and universities.
University tuition fees are going to rise and we are all prepared to accept that to a certain degree. I do not think anybody is complaining that they do not go up as the years go on and the cost of everything else goes up. But when they become so exorbitant that people cannot afford to pay these tuition fees, then we are putting ourselves in a situation where only the elite are going to be able to attend colleges and universities.
We all know that is wrong. We all fought for that and our forefathers fought so that every young person in Canada would be able to attain a university or college education. This has been the goal of the people before us, and it certainly should not change because we are here and are going to change this and drop it back again to the situation where only certain people will be allowed to attend universities.
I ask the federal government to be very careful in this area as it goes along, not to say to the provinces: "Look, we are going to push this off on you because we no longer feel this is our responsibility".
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if this were to happen and we lose, if we start to even water it down is wrong. We talk about unity in this country; unity and disunity come from many different areas, this will be one of them. If there is a lesser medical program in one province compared to another because the provinces cannot afford to pick up the cost, then I am sure that is going to cause more disunity than other things that are causing it today.

Government Orders
I say to the government again, please do not let this become a way of life that we cannot accept. Do not force the people to go out into the streets, as they spoke about the other day on an open-line show, to tell the government that they do not want to lose the medical and health care programs they have.
Do not let the students of this country become segregated. Do not let only the rich be able to attain a university education.
I say to the government that there are ways we can do this. We know there are deficits to pay, but we cannot let this become the total responsibility of the provinces because the provinces do not have the jurisdiction or the tax base to raise further taxes, and people cannot afford to pay it.
The federal government has dipped into the jurisdiction of the provinces and the provinces are now getting into the jurisdiction of the municipalities. There is only so far we can go. I beg this government to consider seriously what is proposed in this bill. Do not let this happen to this great country of ours.


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest and wish to compliment my hon. friend from Hillsborough for his remarks. He does leave me with one or two questions. As I listened to him talk about EPF payments, in particular, I would gather that it is his desire and that of his party that there should be no limits on such things as transfers to the provinces, notwithstanding the fact that we have a serious debt problem in this government and in this country to which we must respond.
For example, it seems to be an eminently reasonable notion for the Government of Canada, which is allowing a growth-not a cut-a growth in expenditures of these transfers of 3.7 per cent while at the same time limiting itself to 3.4 per cent, to ask those who are the source of a good part of those financial problems through uncontrolled expenditures to participate in the restraint that will get control of them again.
My hon. friend made reference in particular to higher education. There is no question that in Atlantic Canada we are well universitized. My own province of Nova Scotia has 13 universities. His province of Prince Edward Island which has a little over 100,000 people has a
university. New Brunswick, I believe, has four universities. My goodness, with a million and a half people in the maritimes, we have more universities than the province of Ontario with some nine million people.
My question to my hon. friend is this. Can he assure this House unequivocally both with respect to education and health care that the provinces, and our own provinces in the maritimes, are in fact making maximum benefit of those dollars that are there, or is there need for more efficient use of the dollars that are available both in terms of health care and in terms of higher education?


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his comments and his questions. I guess this is a debate depending upon whose figures we are looking at when we say that the transfers have gone up. I have figures that say certainly the EPF has been frozen in Atlantic Canada, and Prince Edward Island is going to lose because of that $12 million over the next two years.
There is always room for prudence, there is no doubt about that. We have a lot of universities in Atlantic Canada, and I would hope, as would my hon. colleague, that we continue to maintain those universities in Atlantic Canada. There have been many great people graduate from these universities which are running into problems because of a lack of dollars. Some of the infrastructure has to be refurbished in these places. I believe that the money has been utilized to the fullest in these universities. Certainly there is always room to go and have a look and make sure that it is. I do not think any money has been wasted in this area. If there are better ways to do it, I would be the first one to agree.
Let us not allow these universities to deteriorate to a state where they cannot compete or operate. I would hope that my colleague across would also want to see that happen.
When you come to post-secondary education, especially in Atlantic Canada, we are running into a situation now where the transfer payments have been frozen. The university in my province to which he alluded has said that in September, 1991, the tuition fees will increase by 15 per cent. That is a fair increase for any young person who is at this time looking for a job when there are very few jobs out there. This summer there are very few jobs
June 17, 1991

in the private sector; there are very few jobs in government for university or high school students.
I believe that we always have to look at funding. We always have to make sure it is prudent. But let us not throw it away saying it is a debt that has to be paid. Let us be careful in looking at this, and make sure that if we have to do it somewhere else, let us do it somewhere else. But let us make sure that our health care and our university systems are taken care of.


Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask if the hon. member for Hillsborough would find it in his heart to answer the question that my hon. colleague for South Shore just asked him.
I am interested in knowing why there are 13 universities in Nova Scotia and what is the justification. As a member from the province of Ontario, which has fewer universities, I would be interested in knowing the justification for that.
I would also like to pose one other question to the hon. member. Where does he stand on the issue of economic union of the Atlantic provinces? Does he think that might be a viable alternative in the future in order to equalize some of the disparate economic bases we have in this country? Two questions for the hon. member.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, regarding the first question as to why there are so many institutions, I suppose over the years the demand was there. A lot of people have always liked to come to the maritimes-and still do-to attend these universities. I have no inclination to say they should not be there. If we can have 13 more, I am sure the hon. member for South Shore would only be willing to see them in Bridgewater and Lunenburg. I have no doubt that these institutions have been very successful during the time of their existence. They are very credible universities.
The country began in the maritimes and the university system among other things started there. The labour movement in this country, the union movement, started right in my colleague's province of Nova Scotia. So it is very capable of producing university graduates who are capable of doing many great jobs in this country.
So far as the economic union of the maritime provinces or Atlantic Canada, that is something that has been looked at very seriously by the Council of Maritime
Government Orders
Premiers. I am sure it is worth while to see if there are some ways that duplication could be eliminated in this area. I would hope that they are going to look at the whole Atlantic region.
Of course, we have to go back to 1864 when the Fathers of Confederation came to talk to a group of people who were meeting in Charlottetown about not only economic union, but political union in the maritime provinces. It has not come about yet and I am not optimistic that it is going to come about soon. I know that today the premiers of the four provinces are meeting to talk about this very option again.
I would just like to say that Prince Edward Island has produced more university presidents than any other province in Canada. So I think we are very successful. I do not think we need to let this situation deteriorate. If my colleague from South Shore asked me if I thought the money was being used wisely, I would say yes. There is always room to go in and have a look to make sure it is, and I have no objection to that. But I just say to the government of the day; let's not cut it off.


Garth Turner: Just a point of clarification, Mr. Speaker. I was interested in the member's remarks but I did not quite hear if he was endorsing the concept of political union for the Atlantic region. I wonder if he might answer that particular point for the House?


George Albert Proud: The hon. member's first question was economic union, and now he has asked me for political union.
No, I am not prepared to look at political union of the Atlantic provinces as yet.


Mr. Pat Sobeski (Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, the 1991 budget sets out a plan for economic recovery, a strong solid recovery that would not only put the recession behind us but lead us forward to continuing growth and renewed prosperity. The plan demands that Canadians work more effectively in a partnership for prosperity.
For decades, the federal government has provided large and growing financial support to the provinces. This year alone total federal transfers, including both cash and tax transfers, will reach almost $37 billion. Just the cash portion of the transfers accounts for one-fifth of all federal program spending. These transfers are simply too large to exempt from the expenditure re-

Government Orders
straint program. The deficit is a national program problem and it demands a national solution.
Most importantly, it should be understood that in slowing growth of transfer payments, the federal government is seeking to encourage all levels of government to realistically live within their means, just as the federal government is doing with its other programs.
Both levels of government will benefit from the budget's initiatives, which will translate into lower interest rates, economic recovery and enhance long-term economic competitiveness. It is therefore in the interests of both levels of government to co-operate.
It should be noted that the 1991 budget had no effect on transfers in the current fiscal year. The 1991-92 transfers were made on the basis of the budget a year ago in February, 1990, which provinces had already factored into their planning.
What this year's budget did was to announce that the two-year expenditure management measures affecting transfers that were put in place in February, 1990 will be extended, unchanged, for a further three years to 1994-95. This gives more than a year's notice to provinces and reasonable time to adjust.
Federal transfers to provincial governments account for 23 per cent of our program spending. They will again total over $37 billion.
They are simply too large to be exempted from efforts to control our deficit. In 1989, Ottawa moved timidly to reduce the growth of federal transfers for Established Program Financing by reducing it to 1 per cent or $200 million beginning in 1990-91. In hindsight, this was far too little.
In cash and tax equivalents, Ottawa pours $20 billion a year into that one program, presumably to support provincial financing of medicare and post-secondary education. Since the transfers are in the form of unconditional block grants, some of the funds may find their way into provincial places unrelated to health and education.
What is far more grating to federal budget makers wrestling with the huge fiscal and political dilemma is the seeming disregard of some provinces for spending money generally, and federal transfer funds in particular.
Some provinces, such as Alberta and Saskatchewan, have come close to matching the federal level of program spending restraint. But Ontario, our richest province and the one largely fueling our inflationary situation, has been increasing its spending over 10 per cent a year and that simply is not fair.
Since taking office in 1984, federal program spending has been held to an average annual increase of 3.7 per cent a year. By comparison, spending by the provincial governments increased on average by 7.2 per cent each year over the same period. Annual provincial spending has ranged from over 10 per cent in one province-and into that you can read Ontario-to just about 3 per cent in some western provinces. Despite requests to the provinces to help out in deficit reduction, federal transfers have continued to increase at an annual rate of 6.5 per cent, nearly twice the rate of spending Ottawa has allowed itself.
The message that was communicated to the finance minister during the period leading up to the budget was that Canadians expect government to bear its share of restraint. In a budget that is tough on governments at all levels, the finance minister has declared war on the deficit. The budget included an array of measures to control government spending, including the passing of a law to place a ceiling on how much politicians can spend; another measure to apply the GST to the deficit instead of new programs, and the establishment of inflation targets, so that the public understands what price stability means.
Also, by saying the deficit is a national problem which needs a national solution, the finance minister is not asking more of the provinces than it is doing itself. Federal and provincial governments have to start co-operating and stop pointing fingers.
The message in the budget is that governments must stop spending more than Canadians can afford. Given the importance of deficit reduction, and as the largest single employer in Canada, the government is introducing a three-year program of wage restraint in the federal Public Service. In taking this step, the government wishes to stress that federal employees are not being singled out for restraint. All Canadians face difficulty during the present period. Every one of us knows individuals who have lost their jobs or are now on lay-off.

In the current situation, the government must also cut back. Pay restraint is particularly important at the provincial and the municipal levels, including education and health services.


An hon. member:: Tell us about Ontario.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: Wage and salaries in these sectors account for 45 per cent of all expenditures. Wage settlements in these sectors have been running ahead of inflation and our ability to pay. Some provinces already have introduced programs in their budgets to limit the pay increases for their provinces. My colleague reminds me that Ontario was negligent in its recent budget by not doing that.
This government will introduce unprecedented legislation this year to strictly limit spending increases in all federal programs. A new law will ensure Canadians that higher taxes cannot be used to pay for additional spending. Canadians do not want taxes to pay for more spending. They are telling governments to keep spending under control. Based on comments received from constituents, many Canadians do not believe that government can control its spending. I feel legislative controls are a way to instil confidence that Ottawa will maintain a firm control on its budget.
This law will bring in a major change in the way government manages its spending. New programs will have to be funded within the total legislative ceiling. The government will not be able to raise taxes to pay for new programs. Legal limits on program spending will be imposed for five years. With few exceptions, program spending growth will be limited to 3 per cent a year. This 3 per cent ceiling on spending growth is based on savings anticipated for specific cuts already announced in the budget so that no further cuts will be needed to meet these legislative targets.
Another important budget announcement was the establishment of the Debt Service Reduction Fund which responds directly to public concerns that revenues from the GST could be used to fund new spending rather than reducing the deficit. All GST revenues will go into the new fund and be used exclusively for lowering the deficit and bringing the public debt under control.
According to the budget documents, the GST will produce $16.4 billion for the government in the next fiscal year and $18.3 billion in the following year. It is expected to climb substantially in 1992-93 because of the
Government Orders
one time cost associated with moving from the old manufacturers' sales tax, that the parties on the opposite side wanted to keep in place and that the GST replaced.
One time costs include the transitional grant to small businesses. Canadian businesses will receive approximately $2.3 billion to offset the federal sales tax that existed in their inventories. The entire $16.4 billion will be put forward to the annual $42 billion cost of servicing the debt in the current fiscal year. The remainder will come from general revenues.
Again, one message communicated from local correspondents is the concern that the revenues from GST might be used to finance new spending programs instead of to help reduce the deficit. But the decision to legislate spending limits and the decision to earmark all the GST revenues for deficit reduction should ease concerns about wasting that money on new programs.
In a bold move aimed at pulling down Canada's inflation rate to a 20-year low and one of the lowest in the industrial world, the federal government and the Bank of Canada have announced targets designed to reduce inflation to 2 per cent by 1995.
The government said the target is to get the year over year increase in the Consumer Price Index down to 3 per cent by the end of 1992, 2.5 per cent by the middle of 1994 and 2 per cent by the end of 1995.
In the budget the message was that inflation targets are one of the key steps on the path to price stability. They should give Canadian consumers, Canadian business, labour and investors a better understanding of how quickly price stability can and will be achieved. This should reduce the resistance to lowering inflation thus bringing the benefits more quickly and more easily.
There is no denying the direct link between inflation and interest rates. Our economic history proves it. During the 1950s and 1960s when inflation was low, averaging less than 3 per cent a year, interest rates were low. When inflation surged in the 1970s interest rates soared also. Unless Canadians are told what price stability means and what the result is likely to be, they will inevitably be reluctant to begin adjusting their behaviour accordingly. But if the country was presented with a target of 2.5 per cent for two years from now, Canadian investors, business managers, consumers and employees can begin planning now.

Government Orders
If Canada were to abandon now the objectives of price stability and lower inflation the country would be locking itself into an inflationary future, and would probably isolate itself as a high inflation country in a low inflation world. Even if the rest of the world were not moving towards low inflation economies, Canada could and should adopt price stability as an independent objective.
If we were to target, as a nation, 6 per cent as our target inflation rate, a $100 purchase 12 years from today would cost $200. It would double in price in 12 years, and 12 years after that, it would cost $400.
If we were to achieve a 3 per cent inflation target, the $100 good today would take 24 years to reach a price of $200. Therein lies the importance of inflation targets. If we do not start on it today, the question that will be talked about in this House 25 years today will be: Why have prices quadrupled in Canada but maybe in the United States or in the rest of the world, they have only doubled? If we do not do that, certainly this country will be in major difficulty.
Inflation also creates real problems for wage negotiations. Employers and employees often have quite different expectations of inflation, and this makes it harder to agree on a fair settlement. It is not surprising then that periods of high inflation in Canada are matched by an increase in days of work lost due to strikes.
Let us review an example of the impact of inflation and wages on a settlement. A company expects its revenues will only increase 3 per cent next year. If it raises prices any higher, it may lose sales to lower price competition, so it offers its workers a 3 per cent wage increase.
The workers are sitting back and they expect that the consumer inflation will be 5 per cent. In fairness, they want at least this amount so they can maintain their standard of living. This puts the company between a rock and a hard place. If it gives the 5 per cent wage hike, it could become less profitable and even go out of business. If it does not give the workers what they expect, the result could be a strike which could then mean lost sales and lay-offs.
That is an example of why nobody is a winner with high inflation. It should be acknowledged that there are numerous problems with setting targets. Using the Consumer Price Index as an indicator of inflation is certainly open for debate. There are unexpected price shocks such as an oil price explosion and that could throw inflation off the target set by the government and the Bank of Canada. These are weak reasons for avoiding explicit inflationary and monetary policy objectives.
If we want this economy to be lasting, we need to do a better job of fighting inflation pressures. Our national goal must not be just to control inflation, but to get it down dramatically and then keep it down. In other words, our goal must be to achieve price stability.
The economic and social benefits of price stability are enormous. Lower interest rates are one example of one benefit in achieving that stability. Price stability is vital for Canadian consumers and Canadian companies to compete and succeed in today's global workplace.
I would like to conclude with a statement that a former British Prime Minister of the Labour Party gave in September 1976. James Callaghan said:
We used to think you could just spend your way out of a recession, and increase employment, by cutting taxes and boosting government spending. I tell you in all candour that option no longer exists, and in so far as it ever did exist, it worked by injecting inflation into the economy. And each time that happened, the average level of unemployment has risen. Higher inflation, followed by higher unemployment. That is the history of the last 20 years.
I close with those comments from the Labour Party back in 1976. Before I sit down, I move:
That this question be now put.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member in his speech made several inaccurate statements when he suggested that we in this party were in favour of retaining the old manufacturers' sales tax.
He knows perfectly well that the record indicated our willingness to scrap that tax. We thought it was a bad tax. He knows that in committee we were not supporting the existing tax, and yet he chooses to flaunt this myth in the House in an effort to try to discredit the opposition. It has done such an effective job as evidenced by the polls,
June 17, 1991

that it has left his party in tatters at 14 per cent. I do not want to dwell on the polls. What I want to do is refer to the really shameful charade that he and the Minister of Finance have engaged in with respect to the goods and services tax and the application of the revenue from this tax to this Deficit Reduction Fund, which we all know is the biggest case of paper shuffling we have seen in the Government of Canada for many years.
Would he not admit that in his calculations, when the federal deficit is $30 billion a year-I guess it is down to $30 billion or it might be $31 billion this year-and the revenues from the goods and services tax are less than that figure-about $22 or $23 billion according to the original estimates and they will go up no doubt, because the government I think deliberately underestimated those figures-it is no problem to apply all the funds from the GST to reduce the government deficit? It could be argued that you would have to increase the goods and services tax to reduce the deficit, because the GST is not reducing it, it is just paying part of it.
What the government is doing in this case, I suggest, is creating this phoney fund, this Deficit Reduction Fund, putting the revenues from the goods and services tax into it and claiming that somehow it is not using the GST for other expenses. Does he not admit that that is a bit of a fraud on the people?


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the finance committee I sat through the 18 months of GST hearings where we had a number of companies come forward with suggestions. I think the hon. member knows that his party's recommendation in its minority report, after listening for 18 months, was that the finance minister resign. I point that out because I think it is important that all governments, all parties, but particularly, all governments, federal, provincial, and municipal, have to work together to solve this particular problem.
The member is suggesting in his question that, indeed, this calculation may be all smoke and mirrors. I think that is what he is saying, but the bottom line is this. If the government has projected a deficit this year of $30 billion, and if the GST brings in $1 billion additional revenues, then at the end of the year, all things being equal, that budget deficit should be only $29 billion. This is a clear way for Canadians to see that the excess money was used to reduce the annual deficit. They will recognize that.
Government Orders
I know the member over there is disappointed because his party would be sitting there planning how to spend this $400 million that has been reported in the press. The NDP have probably already figured out where it is being spent.


Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to ask my colleague whether Ontario's budgetary measures on the federal scene, given the fact that the Government of Ontario has made an obligation to double the wage increase that the federal government has done for its own civil servants, that provincial spending is up by 13 per cent year over year, that senior Ontario civil servants will be given bonuses of $11,000 each, and seeing that there is a deficit of $9.7 billion in the province of Ontario, plus a further billion in tax increases, would be likely to have an impact on the kinds of targets the hon. member is talking about? In other words, do we have governments working at cross purposes here in terms of having provincial government budgetary actions impacting on federal budgetary actions and hurting all Canadians. I would be interested in his comments.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: Certainly, many in Ontario are concerned about not only the one year deficit projection of the budget of the New Democratic Party in Ontario, but the projection of that budget extending out of deficits of $8 billion continuing four years from now. The concern that Ontarians should have, and all Canadians, is once you get on that slope when do you get off it?
Back in 1968 when Edgar Benson presented a balanced budget, at that point in time the federal government was paying approximately 12 cents of every tax dollar to reduce the debt, and by 1984 at the end of that reign, it was close to 32 cents of every dollar of tax money going towards the debt.
The hon. member is quite correct, because once you have that yoke around your neck-today it is close to 34, 35 cents.
What has happened in the province of Ontario is that today it is 11 cents of every tax dollar that is spent for debt. If you use the example, going back, that is exactly the predicament that the province of Ontario will find itself in unless they do something tremendously drastic. I am sure that when it goes through their budgetary hearings-and I am hopeful-that the NDP government

June 17, 1991
Government Orders
will listen to the concerns coming before committee just as this government also listens to concerns.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, at the time I moved that this question be put, I neglected to mention that it would be seconded by Mr. Bouchard. Thank you.


Mr. Karpoff:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I believe that by the procedures in this House, you cannot move a motion under questions and comments, and the motion was not properly put while the member was speaking so he now cannot correct it and put it during questions and comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I think you are right, because the motion was not moved with-

The motion moved by the hon. member for Cambridge did not have a seconder and, consequently, is not admissible at this time.
Three minutes left for questions and comments. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the hon. member because the other thing he talked about in his speech was this wonderful policy that he claims the government is introducing. It is frankly not in this bill, so I wonder why he was talking about it. But I guess a speech is a speech. But he talked about this wonderful policy that the Minister of Finance announced in his budget wherein we would pass an act in this House to restrict future government expenditure.
I know the purpose of the bill is to restrain his colleagues in cabinet from their wasting ways in spending money that they should not be spending. I know that is the purpose. But set that aside for a moment. What he was trying to claim by this bill was far beyond that; he was trying to claim that somehow this bill restricted future governments from introducing new programs unless the money was raised in taxes to pay for the programs.
Will he not agree that that statement is patently false and that all a government introducing a new program has to do is introduce an amendment to this particular bill, once it is passed, which will then be an act, and say that
this particular program is exempt from the provisions of that act or repeal the whole wretched act and that is the end of it?
In other words, this is no restraint on Parliament at all. This is mere window dressing designed to deceive the people of Canada into thinking that this government has finally done something about the deficit, after seven years of inactivity.


Patrick (Pat) Anthony Sobeski: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important on this particular piece of legislation that indeed the government has put a control on the spending side, and not like the United States which introduced a similar bill and also tried to make revenue and spending projections. This is a limit just on the amount of money that can be spent by this federal government.
The concern is certainly because of the track record, because Canadians are concerned, and part of it is that the track record of spending by the federal governments over the past few years has to be looked at. The hon. member represents a party that certainly opened the vault door but could not decide how to keep it closed. It is indeed possible that down the road a government could change the legislation, and that is exactly a possibility.
But I think that this government has demonstrated spending restraint. One of the decisions the Canadian voters will have to make is will they continue to trust a government that has actually put that measure forward, or will they open the doors down the road and let the Liberals allow inflation to get out of hand. Then indeed this country will be in great difficulty 20 years from now.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I could speak on this bill for several hours, and I am going to find it very difficult to restrict myself to the 20 minutes I
have.
In the limited time I have, I want to talk about two or three significant things that this bill does. First of all, I want to talk about the whole question of debt because the Conservative approach to debt and deficit reduction is to off-load that responsibility on to other levels of government. They have not curtailed their own expenditures, they have simply said: "We will not honour historic agreements in Canada for transfer of payments."

June 17, 1991

The Conservatives make a lot about the question of the Ontario deficit, but they do not say that $3 billion of that deficit is because of loss of revenue from the federal government.
The UI increases in Bill C-20 amount to $150 per worker for a worker who is earning only $27,000 a year. That has a significant impact. It is a tax increase on working people, particularly affecting those on low incomes or fixed incomes. It is also a tax increase on small business. Small business has difficulty meeting its increased costs under UIC.
In the meantime, the federal government has withdrawn from its historic responsibility in unemployment insurance.
I will just talk briefly about the effects this is having on my own local community of Surrey. What does this mean? The UIC changes mean that the Surrey municipalities must raise $300,000 more for unemployment insurance premiums this year. That means that the taxes on people's homes have to be raised, and that certainly is not fair to Surrey residents. It means that the school board has to take $1 million out of educational dollars and put it into unemployment insurance that has been the responsibility of the federal government. What does that mean? It means they have had to cut teachers. They have had to cut back on special programs to assist children with learning disabilities. That is not fair to my local community.
What about the Surrey Memorial Hospital? The cutbacks to UIC mean that they have to come up with $350,000 more for UIC premiums. We already have had long waiting lists at the Memorial Hospital. These are now going to get longer because staff have had to be cut and services have had to be reduced. So it has a health impact on people at the local level, and communities like Surrey are forced to bear the brunt.
All the federal government has done is take its responsibility and put it down on the local taxpayer and the local government. Because of its fiscal mismanagement and its fiscal incompetence, it has said: "We can no longer deal with it, we are just going to throw the whole mess to the local government and hope that they or the provinces can."
The curtailment of the Canada Assistance Plan for the three big provinces simply means that those provinces either have to slash money for child welfare, child
Government Orders
protection, services to single parents who are on welfare, or they have to pick up the cost.
I think this whole way that the federal government has decided to deal with its deficit problem is going to result in not only a curtailment of services right across the country, but in extreme difficulties at the local level.
I want to spend most of my time talking about health care because in Canada health care has been a source of national pride. It is one of the areas and one of the fundamental ways that Canadians define Canada, particularly as distinct from the United States.
In Canada there are no financial barriers to people seeking medical treatment. The system is relatively efficient and is widely supported. Canadians move within Canada on business, holidays and to seek employment with the knowledge that similar health care standards are met in all provinces and territories. This promotes a national identity and national unity.
Any changes that would result in the erosion of our national programs are not supported by the Canadian public, but what we have seen is a consistent attack on national medicare. This is not a recent attack. This did not start in 1984. This started under the previous Liberal government in 1975.
It put a ceiling on its transfer of payments to the provinces for medicare, the same as the Tories have done now. It arbitrarily put a ceiling on the transfer payments. Then in 1977 it forced the provinces into block funding. The only party who opposed block funding was the New Democratic Party.
In 1982 the Liberals brought in legislation to do away with the revenue guarantee which cost the provinces $4 billion over the next five years and loss of income for medicare. Under the Liberals the share of federal costs or expenditures for medicare went from 50 per cent to 43 per cent and of course, under the Tories it has gone from 43 per cent down to 37 per cent, with projections now in the last week coming out to say that by the end of the five years it will be down to 32 per cent.
The Liberals set the platform. They set the means and the agenda for the attack on medicare, and of course, the Tories were excellent learners. They were even more than good. They learned very quickly and the first thing they did was to start limiting the projected increases under established programs.

Government Orders
Let's look at what the Established Program Financing was. It was based on the increase in gross domestic productivity. In other words, if the economy went up, the transfers went up. If the economy did not expand, the transfers did not expand. In spite of the fact that there was an expanding economy the Tories brought in arbitrary and unilateral legislation to limit transfer payments.
In 1986 when it was brought in, it was to be 2 per cent less than the GDP. In 1989 it was raised to 3 per cent. Last year in 1990 the government froze it for two years and now in this bill it is freezing it for a total of five years. The loss of revenue to the provinces in terms of what they should have received and anticipated receiving for medicare is dramatic.
Provinces like my home province of British Columbia will receive $3.5 billion less for medicare by 1995. Ontario will receive $10.58 billion less.
By the year 2000 there will have been $62 billion taken out of medicare by this federal government. That is not counting the money that was taken out by the Liberals that also affected the base line and has been estimated to probably be in the neighbourhood of $1 to $1.2 billion a year.
What we have is a dramatic erosion of medicare by the federal government. These estimations on the loss of revenue for the provinces have been repeatedly documented by organizations like the National Council on Welfare. The Parliamentary Library has documented it as has the Association of Universities and Colleges. Yet the government pretends that it is not so.
By 1995-1996 there will be no more cash payments to Quebec, and a few years after that to any other province. This means that we will no longer have a national medicare program that can be enforced. We will be going into an Americanized system.
We should be very careful about how we approach this. If you look at the American system, it spends 10.63 per cent of its GNP on health care compared to Canada at 8.62 per cent. They say down there that 37 million people have no health insurance, and another 20 million have inadequate health insurance. That is what is going to happen if we proceed down the path set by this government for national medicare.
I want to spend a few minutes looking at the impact of the cuts on medicare first of all and what the cuts in the transfer payments mean at the service delivery level. The impact is dramatically different on the wealthy provinces as opposed to the poorer provinces. The wealthy provinces still have some financial capability to absorb some of the fiscal cuts from the federal government without dramatic reduction of services. That is not true in the weaker provinces.
In provinces such as Newfoundland, 10 per cent of the nursing staff had to be laid off because of the reduction in money from the federal government. They had no choice. That is a province that is already spending 9 per cent of its GNP on health care. Prince Edward Island is spending 9 per cent. Nova Scotia and New Brunswick are spending 7.5 per cent. They are already spending a large percentage of their GNP on health care, much more than the wealthier provinces, which the minister must know. Ontario spends only 5.5 per cent of its GNP on health care. Alberta spends 5.8 per cent, and B.C. spends 6 per cent.
The provinces that are in the weakest financial shape and are already putting out the highest percentage of their GNP on health care have no alternative but to slash medical services in their provinces and close hospitals.


Mr. Bouchard (Roberval):: You always have a choice. Alberta is not the poorest province in Canada, my friend.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Alberta may not be, but talk to people in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and Manitoba. Ask them if there is not an impact on their ability to deliver health services by this government's unilateral and uncalled for cuts in medicare.
One of the things we have seen already-


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I cannot prevent myself from raising a point of order. A couple of times the member for Surrey North, who is my critic by the way, has said that the government cut transfer payments. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. We have increased transfer payments every year. We have reduced the pace of transfers, but it is wrong to say to Canadians that we have cut them. We have not cut, and we have all the figures to prove that my friend is wrong.
June 17, 1991


SPEAKER'S RULING
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: I think it is a matter of opinion. I will have to give the floor back to the hon. member for Surrey North. However, before I do, I would like to correct a mistake I made.
Earlier, the hon. member for Cambridge asked that the question be now put. I checked Hansard and realized that the motion had been made properly. The Speaker usually checks by looking the way of the sponsor that the motion is seconded, which I failed to do. So, to rectify my mistake, I am prepared to put again to the House the motion properly presented by the hon. member for Cambridge.


MEASURE TO ENACT
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not catch the full impact of your ruling.
Are you saying that the question was in fact seconded? There was no one in the House who stood to second it, and the member certainly did not indicate that any member in this House was seconding it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: It is customary for the Speaker to look over to the party where the motion originated and, usually, someone will volunteer to second the motion. In this case, I did not do so.
So, in all fairness, I have to backtrack and do now what I did not do when the hon. member for Cambridge made the motion. I would appeal to the co-operation of the House on this. The motion was made by the hon. member for Cambridge at the end of his speech. Therefore, I now look to the government side and I can see that a member is supporting the motion.
Therefore I will put the question again.

-Mr. Sobeski, seconded by Mr. Bouchard, moved that the question be now put.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.
Government Orders


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Just looking at the whole issue of the cutbacks, I think the government has tried to play tricks with the Canadian public. There was a formula in place that said there would be an increase in payments, and all the government has done is they have said: "We are not going to honour that formula; we are not going to honour the formula that had been agreed to, and we are not going to pass on the increases".
It is the same as if you had a wage contract that called for percentage increases over the next several years, and one day the employer came along and said: "We are not going to honour it".
In the workers' pockets there is that much less money, and they can play around all they want but in the provinces' pockets there is going to be $62.4 billion less by the year 2000. That is going to have a tremendous impact on our health care in this country.
I have talked briefly about the impact on the ability of the provinces to deliver health care services. There is a whole range of things that the provinces have started to do. They have cut back on things like eye examinations, on general health examinations; they have laid off staff; they have closed hospitals; they have also started to talk about the introduction of user fees and extra billing. In fact Quebec has a bill before its assembly to do just that for hospital emergency wards.
There have been many finance ministers in the provinces who are starting to say: "Look if you are not going to give us the money, if you are going to continue to cut back on our anticipated transfer payments, then we want the ability to manage our health care systems as we see fit".
The minister of health in this House last week confirmed that by 1996-97 Quebec will be able to manage its health care system as it sees fit because he will no longer be in a position to enforce standards.
This issue of national standards is one with which the government is trying to play games. It says that it can cut back the money and still insist that the provinces meet national standards. These are the standards that Canadians have learned to accept in our health care: universality, accessibility, non-profit administration, comprehensiveness, portability. Once the federal government's ability to enforce these standards on a national basis is lost, what we will have is not a national medicare program, but we will have 12 different jurisdictions all with 12 different sets of standards and 12 different goals,

Government Orders
including such things as the introduction of user fees and extra billing.
The federal government is saying that it does not believe this is going to happen, that it can cut the dollars and still insist on the provinces meeting its standards.
I think that is a little bit naive on the federal government's part. This bill says that it will attach other transfer payments. I say to the federal government that at this point in time, in the sensitivity of our relationships across Canada, it is inconceivable that either politically or legally it can sustain the position that it will be able to attach the kinds of dollars from other programs that it is cutting if it is not transferring cash payments under medicare.
The Canadian Council on Welfare I think summed that up clearly in a report that it released last year. It says: "Under the budget proposal, Ottawa apparently intends to withhold federal payments other than payments for health care from the provinces and territories which do not respect the principles of the Canada Health Act once cash portions of EPF run out."
The National Council on Welfare cannot imagine the provinces and territories letting this proposal go unchallenged. The delivery of health care services is within provincial jurisdiction under the Constitution. It is only the federal spending power that allows the federal involvement in this area. It is difficult to imagine how Ottawa could continue to maintain its presence once the money for medicare dries up.
In any event, it is obvious that the final word on the proposed legislation will come from the Supreme Court of Canada rather than the Parliament. We would much prefer to see the federal government reconsider its course of action and make such legislation unnecessary.
One of the things that we have already found out is that the province of British Columbia, joined by other provinces, has initiated court action when the federal government tried to curtail Canada Assistance Plan payments. That is where the federal government simply had to give a year's notice and it failed to do so.
So I do not see how, in a time when national unity is very, very fragile in this country, when we need the co-operation and the goodwill of all of these provinces, how the federal government can, on the one hand, say it is going to cut the money that it is transferring, but it is going to continue to tty to tell the provinces what they can do in an area that it does not have any constitutional authority in.
I think we have already seen the indication from the provinces-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: A point of order.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise on debate. There was an inaccuracy when the member said that we tell the provinces- and we will tell the provinces-what to do. He is wrong. They have all the flexibility even to put the user fee on if they want.
In other words, I want to correct my friend and say that we do not have the power to tell the provinces what they should do. The provinces have all that flexibility.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Again, the minister is attempting to mislead Canadians. It is true that technically you cannot order them what to do, but you can impose a financial penalty on them to the point that it becomes impossible for them to do it.
For every dollar they would save or collect by doing something like putting in user fees or extra billing, you take $1 away from them. It is by financial incentive that you force them to do things or not to do things.
It is true, they can commit suicide. They can go ahead and try to introduce user fees. You would simply take the money back. It is technically true that you cannot legislate. There are other sections in the Canada Health Act which indicate that you could make it mandatory. You could impose other penalties on a province over and above the dollar for dollar take-back of money.
It is true that the federal government does have other powers under the Canada Health Act to enforce the standards that it wants the provinces to follow. I notice that my time is up.

Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I would like to correct all the inaccuracies in what my friend has said, but I will not have enough time in 10 minutes.
I will just make a short comment and ask questions of my friend. My comment is that Canadians, as it is quite obvious, know that the poor provinces get more money from the federal level than the rich provinces, and he knows that very well. It is based on a per capita basis.
For example, Newfoundland receives about $2,500 a year per person while there is about $965 per person for Ontario. In other words, we treat the poor provinces differently in light of the capacity they have to pay for what is considered the best health system in the world.
My friend knows that very well. He looked, as I did, last weekend at what was said in the United States about the Canada Health Act. It did not say that it will not be good tomorrow. It said: "It is the best in the world today." We have had it for seven years, which means that we did something for it.
The growth in the poor provinces increased faster than in the rich provinces. It is 4 per cent, as opposed to 3 per cent. I could continue with figures for a while, but I want to give my friend a chance to explain to me something he said about the fact that we pay 38 per cent and the provinces pay an average of 62 per cent rather than 50-50 in terms of the cost of the health care system in the country.
I would like my friend to explain to me exactly how and why it has been changed. Maybe I am wrong, but he seemed to say that it was changed by the former government in 1977. How was it before and why is it the way it is today?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to respond to the minister's questions.
First of all, let us make no mistake. All you had to do was watch the last several provincial budgets to know that the poor provinces had no alternative but to dramatically slash their health care services because of the cutbacks in EPF payments. They anticipated receiving payments from the federal government but they did not receive them.
There is no way you can wiggle around and use words. There is $62.4 billion less going into our health care system under your government by the year 2000.
Government Orders
You are correct that the erosion of medicare started under the Liberals. Prior to 1975 it was a 50-50 program. It was shared 50 per cent by the provinces and 50 per cent by the federal government. Then there was a cap put on the federal government's share unilaterally.
As a result of that the EPF was put in place. It was a block funding mechanism which limited the amount of money the federal government would transfer. The minister knows this very well. I am sure he is probably even more familiar with it than I am. It limited the amount of money the federal government would transfer to the provinces by a formula based on expenditures in the previous years, the increase in population and the growth in GNP or GDP.
That formula has been in place except for the time it was tinkered with by the Liberals in the early 1980s and has been totally demolished by the minister's government starting in 1986. The formula was there to transfer moneys to provinces based on growth in the economy. The economy grew and the federal government unilaterally, without consultation and without any concern about the impact that would have on the ability of provinces to deliver health care, changed the formula. Initially it went to 2 per cent less than GDP, 3 per cent less than GDP and then frozen for two years and now frozen for five years.
I am sure next Wednesday, when the minister meets with his counterparts from the provincial health ministries, they will all say to you that the actions of this government have severely hurt their ability to deliver effective, efficient and accessible health care in their provinces.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform my friend that his explanation of the way it worked in 1977 is not exactly correct.
It is not my role to explain what a former government did, but it was not the federal government that decided. It decided to change the formula because it was requested by the provinces. They wanted more flexibility. They wanted to determine exactly what type of care they would provide to their constituents.
In other words, if a province makes the decision to pay the ambulance from Vancouver to the hospital, it can do that. It is within its flexibility. It is not what we consider, as agreed by the provinces, a medical service given by a

Government Orders
doctor or a hospital and therefore it could be done by the provinces but the provinces will pay alone.
We transfer two tax points which were used by Quebec, in Ontario to a lesser extent, and in other provinces. In other words, when you say 38 per cent, you should tell Canadians that it was requested by the provinces because they wanted to manage their own systems. They asked for more flexibility. We do not have the right, as we do for the social services, to ask for 50-50. It is quite different and it has to be explained because it is the reason we have good service. We have big principles. Services have to be provided by doctors or in a hospital. They are the only constraints. The provinces can do what they want. It is quite different.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: I would like to congratulate the minister for being in the House while this important debate is going on. We do not normally have the opportunity to get into a discussion with the ministers on these kinds of issues.
On the whole question about the changes in the formula and the flexibility under block funding, it did allow the provinces more flexibility but they requested it based on the fact that they had a formula in place which they thought guaranteed them moneys in the future. They thought, mistakenly, that we would accept this idea of better management and more flexibility of our health care dollars on the understanding that we know now, next year, five years from now and ten years from now what the transfers we will receive from the provinces will be. That was what the EPF was all about.
They took on the role of managing the health care dollar better. They took on the role of flexibility and then they were totally double crossed on the formula because both the Liberals and the Tories, particularly the Tories since 1986, have unilaterally scrapped the formula. That is what has happened with health care in Canada.
The provinces bought into it on the basis that they had a formula that would give them a guarantee. All of a sudden, that guarantee has been worth absolutely nothing.


Mrs. Louise Feltham (Wild Rose):: Mr. Speaker, my question to my hon. colleague has to do with unemployment insurance. He has spoken about the increases both to the employer and the employee.
Under Bill C-21, a bill that was passed by this House and sent to the Senate, we would be looking at longer hours to qualify for unemployment. If I remember correctly, my hon. colleague did not agree that we should make it longer hours to qualify.
It was passed by the House and went to the Senate. The Senate did not approve it. Was the hon. member in agreement with not extending the hours and therefore costing both the employer and the employee additional funds? Does he feel that unemployment is a way of life, and not an interim measure when people are unemployed?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, if we get many more Tory governments, unemployment insurance is going to be a way of life for people if the way of life is not welfare. We have seen that dramatically in the last year or two. That is a way of life.
I did not agree nor did my party agree with the cutbacks in the UIC plan whereby the people had to work longer for less benefits.
Furthermore, we did not agree with the fact that the federal government again unilaterally pulled out of its historic responsibility to contribute to the unemployment insurance fund. It simply dumped it on to the employees and the employers, which hurt small business, municipalities, hospitals and school boards in this country.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to debate today Bill C-20, an act to amend certain statutes to implement the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26 of this year.
What is it really? This bill covers a lot of issues that will adversely affect Canadians, but there is one issue on which I would like to focus in light of my responsibility as critic for health and welfare.
Before I get to that, I would just like to indicate for the record that I recognize that this bill will address amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act, Public Utilities Income Tkx Transfer Act, the Unemployment Insurance Act and the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act.
June 17, 1991

In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Act is concerned-I was listening to some of the questions posed earlier by the government side-I would like to remind the House that during debate of Bill C-21, the Unemployment Insurance Act, the government made some assurances that though direct contributions would cease, the government would nevertheless be there to help finance the program in difficult times.
We are in difficult times. We are still in a recession. If I would quote Mr. Wilson as he indicated in his budget papers of 1989, he said: "The government will continue to contribute to the financing of the program in difficult economic times when it is inappropriate to raise premiums and prudent to allow deficits to build in the unemployment insurance account."
He went on to say on October 22, 1980 through a government senator: "The other place was assured that Mr. Wilson, during a lengthy crisis, would provide money to supplement the UI account."
That has not been seen and I would just like it to be recorded.
I would like to focus, as I said earlier, on what this bill is in so far as the future of medicare is concerned. For me, that future is the end of medicare.
Last night I was in my office past midnight sorting out sheets of newspaper clippings-and I have a lot here-set out before me. There were dozens of stories from newspapers all across this country along with reports, press releases and all the speeches of mine. They all said the same thing. Medicare is dying. Who holds the knife? The government does hold the knife. The knife is a bill like C-20 before us.
In my mind I retraced the steps of this death sentence on medicare from Bill C-69 through two budgets of this government and they rank with the bile of heartlessness. I thought, "How can the government expect to succeed if it destroys medicare?" How can the government expect to save this country if it destroys our sacred national institution?
I believe I found the answer in a reply from the Prime Minister during Question Period on June 4, and the records of Hansard can be checked. When the Prime Minister was questioned about reductions in transfer payments, his reply was a lifeline for a sinking government. His reply hinged on an ability to make the
Government Orders
Canadian people accept blame for the inabilities of his government. I quote his response:
We are all in favour of the most advanced and most modem medicare system and the most generous in the world. But we're going to have to find the money to pay for it. These funds come from taxpayers.
He went on to say that lower taxes and improved services, and I quote:
Both can't work together simultaneously.
The Prime Minister is trying to convince Canadians that they expect too much and pay too little. There must be a sacrifice and loss, payment for living a lifestyle beyond our means. As two elections will show, Canadians believed in the Conservative government's financial vision and that is sad because the Tory caucus trademark since coming into government has been a social policy by stealth. This is not an original analysis. This is an analysis done by Mr. Gratton Gray in an excellent article published recently in Policy Options.
In other words, this government has carefully disguised as sound fiscal management changes that serve to destroy our social system including medicare.
Recall 32 tax increases in six years. That has been phenomenal. Safety nets so low you fall further before reaching them. Children of poverty-over a million. Free trade, its debacle effect on loss of jobs. Now we are seeing cross-border shopping and hospitals barely able to cope, but everything is the fault of the Canadian public, so the Prime Minister would like us to believe; at the Canadian public have lived beyond their means and expected too much. Now is the time to pay for the misdeeds of decades.
I say it is untrue. There is nothing seriously flawed about our federal health care system. In fact it is one of the best and most efficient in the world. The minister of health earlier this morning during debate has alluded to that. If it is really as good as he said it is, then why is he trying to dismantle it? It does not make common sense.
I should say that the medicare system was recently lauded by the Comptroller-General of the United States who when speaking before a U.S. congressional committee said, and I would like to quote:
In 1987, Canada's per capita spending on insurance administration was one-fifth that of the United States. Canada spends less because its publicly financed, single-payer system eliminates the costs associated with marketing competitive health insurance policies, billing for and collecting premiums and evaluating risks.

Government Orders
For physician services, Canada spent 34 per cent less per person in 1987 than did the United States. This difference is largely the result of Canada's controls on physician fees. In addition, the Canadian physicians have lower practice expenses for billing and malpractice premiums.
For hospital services, Canada spent 18 per cent less per person in 1987 than the United States.
The same Congressional Committee heard testimony from an American family with a young daughter whose illness was so expensive to treat that they could no longer find a company to insure them. This family was considering fleeing to Canada to become "health refugees". And we want to destroy our medical system, Mr. Speaker?
This is what happens when private insurance agencies control medicare. In the United States there are almost 1,500 insurance companies. The bureaucracy of dealing with these companies-for billing, for payments and communication-consumes much of the time of doctors and their staff.
The Canadian model is cost and people efficient, freeing our health care professionals to do the jobs they have been trained to do.
Yes, medicare is valued, and it is a right of Canadian citizenship, but it is more than that. Medicare is a necessity. It is a national necessity.
If your citizens are not healthy, then your country is not healthy. In the United States there are over 31 million people who have no health insurance and many more who are under-insured. Their lives are mired in fear for their own futures, afraid they will become ill, a fate which often destroys them financially.
Last week in Prince Edward Island the federal finance minister shrugged his shoulders when his provincial counterpart requested more money for services. I would like to quote. "We are doing the best we can", were the comforting words he gave them to take home to health care systems in crisis. "We simply cannot afford the type of escalation we have had in the past."
Well, I would like to put on record that the forthcoming report of the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, which I believe will be tabled in Parliament
before the end of the week, shows the funding for national health care has been more or less stable since 1975 as a percentage of the gross national product. And the gross national product ought to be looked at by Canadians as a measure of our ability to pay. So we must be careful when this government tries to scare Canadians and say we have over-spent.
Sure, we need reforms, but the way to reform is not to kill medicare. The way to treat a patient is not to kill the patient but to truly provide the necessary remedies of genuine reforms.
In real dollars the cost of transfers per capita in 1978-79 was $705 while today the amount is $805. In another three years that figure will drop to $689, according to the National Council on Welfare.
A much more sobering thought is the Council's prediction that transfer payments will stop altogether by the year 2010. That year is really within clear reality, it is soon to come. Others say that is a generous timetable, giving the system fewer years to crash. Meanwhile, if the transfer payment schedule continues as now is proposed by this government, the federal government will save at least $97.6 billion in the next nine years. When we speak of saving $97.6 billion, it sounds terrific.
But the government is not telling us that this is not a true saving for Canadians. The load of this expense will be transferred to the backs of the provinces. Who will pay the taxes? The Canadian people will.
Mr. Speaker, this is political trickery in a real sense. This money will need to be replaced by the provinces if they are to ensure that the quality of health care will be there.
The government accuses the opposition of scaremon-gering when we say the government is driving Canada towards a two-tier health care system. Those who are watching the government see bills like C-69 now law, and C-20, the bill before us. They see transfer payments being cut and frozen, and what are they to believe? They see this everywhere in newspaper reports. Should we shut our eyes and pretend nothing is wrong? Should we pretend that our hospitals are not closing beds and that our nurses and doctors are not stressed to the limit; that there are not queues for every type of surgery, including surgery in life threatening situations?
June 17, 1991

Funding for Established Program Financing must increase at the same rate as the Gross National Product, not GNP minus 3 per cent. It is of little help to many provinces, particularly the have-not provinces if tax points are increased while cash transfers diminish. The government does not deny that this is happening, but what it is continuing to deny is that the reality will happen, that medicare will die. I would like to shake this government to come to consciousness to save our sacred Canadian institution.
Listen to one finance minister from Prince Edward Island again. I find it "excellent" to discuss the gloomy situation for medicare. "Every time the federal government cuts money to the provinces it puts us in a bind."
Or take the case of New Brunswick's finance minister, and I quote:
Federal funding is clearly on the decline and every indication is it's going to continue in that direction. We're having considerable difficulty continuing to live up to the standards required under the Canada Health Act.
Mr. Speaker, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland already spend 11 per cent of their Gross Domestic Product on health care and higher education, even when receiving equalization payments. This compares to six per cent for Ontario, a have province. How can these have-not provinces be expected to find more money to make up for federal government lapses, I ask?
Without enough money, how can the Canada Health Act be maintained?
In the last federal budget, the government promised to introduce legislation to protect national standards. I thought: well, at least the government is thinking of protecting medicare. In keeping its promise, the government has introduced Bill C-20. Now this is a hollow promise because why should we believe that Bill C-20 will protect medicare? I tell you, when you look at Bill C-20 you will see and recognize the application of financial penalties under the Canada Health Act, to other federal payments to provinces in the event of a breach by a province of the national health standards set out in the Canada Health Act. What it is telling us is that it will even penalize other programs. It will penalize such programs as the equalization payments, territorial financing, grants in lieu of taxes, public utilities income tax transfers, statutory subsidies, the Canada Assistance Plan, the Crop Insurance contributions, the miscellaneous Health and Welfare transfers, the Young Offenders Services, Justice transfers and transportation transfers.
Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, at least over a dozen areas will be even more adversely affected with this Bill C-20. Who really believes the government anymore? They are just buying time. They are cutting away at our social safety net, piece by piece, at their leisure. If the government truly believes in health care, truly believes in protecting medicare, we already have the leverage in the Canada Health Act of today. All it has to do is provide that leverage, that financial contribution that ought to be adequate for its needs. That would be the guideline that ought to be the criterion that Canadians will accept.
Medicare is under the knife and so too is funding for education. The Canada Assistance Plan, unemployment insurance benefits and tax points in return for cash transfers are of little help to the have-not provinces.
In the remaining time I would like to indicate that every day our health care is being whittled away and, to believe the words of the government, "is a luxury" I and other Canadians can afford. Trust is a dear commodity these days, especially trust in light of the government's past actions.
I am an opposition member. This kind of distrust of the government perhaps is expected of me. But let me say that because we are in opposition does not mean that we are opposing this only because we are in opposition. We are opposing this bill because we are reflecting the sentiments of Canadians, as expressed by the National Council on Welfare in its recent publication Danger Looming. Because of time, I cannot quote at length, but the National Council on Welfare is truly concerned.
Cuts are not only hurting medicare. They are directly affecting our children. The situation is so bad that last week, while participating in the largest day care conference in Canada, the Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association issued a press release indicating that it calls on the federal government to remove the cap on the Canadian Assistance Program.
In conclusion, I would like to say that Bill C-20 must be defeated. The government must negotiate with the provinces and restore adequate funding for medicare. The government already has the leverage to protect the Canada Health Act. Our medicare system has been enshrined as a Canadian institution to guarantee that all Canadians, irrespective of income, and particularly the poor, have access to health services. It must protect Canadians when they become ill from becoming poor or poorer.

June 17, 1991
Government Orders
I submit that these are difficult times in our country. The forces of disunity are all around us. Let medicare be the national glue that maintains us as Canadians from coast to coast to coast.


Peter L. McCreath: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care and attention to my hon. friend from Winnipeg North. I have a question for him.
Where can I get one of these wonderful credit cards that the Liberals have, where you can spend and spend and spend and the interest accumulates and the interest accumulates, but you never have to pay the bill?
My hon. friend talks about scare tactics with respect to medicare. I remember 1988,1 remember the scare tactics that terrorized senior citizens in my area, about how medicare was going to be destroyed by the free trade agreement. Now what is happening? The Americans are coming up here to study our medicare system because it is so good. Why is it good? It is good because we can pay for it.
This debate is about whether or not we are going to have medicare in the future. If the spending of this government had continued in the uncontrolled manner of its predecessor which left office with a $38 billion deficit, today it would be $99 billion.
My hon. friend talks about unemployment insurance. He decries the increase in unemployment insurance. My understanding of an insurance program is that the premiums are supposed to pay for the program, so that if the pay-out goes up, so do the premiums. In the case of this one there is no question. With Bill C-21, it was the intent of the government to set the premium for three years, but we have had a recession in this country. We all know we have had a recession in this country that has been milder than it would have been had it not been for the measures implemented by this government.
The fact of the matter is the government has a responsibility to manage the UI account. If there had been no change in those premiums, we would be looking at a $6 billion deficit in unemployment insurance by the
end of 1992. That is unacceptable. That would be irresponsible on the part of the government. Even with an increase to $280 we are going to be looking at a $500 million deficit which will be made up by the government, as the government committed itself to doing when it introduced Bill C-21 a year or so ago. The truth of the matter is that the rate increase will coincide with the recovery so that the impact will not be as great as my hon. friend suggests.
Does my hon. friend not think it incumbent upon government to spend within its resources or does he believe the way to prosperity in the future is to allow deficits to accumulate, accumulate, accumulate?


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to respond to those comments.
Do we believe that we have to continue to spend endlessly? No. Do we believe that we should spend efficiently for the health care system? I said yes. The premise to the question that he makes is expenditure for medicare. That is the topic before us.
Let me go to his question on the unemployment insurance for a moment. Perhaps the member was not listening quite carefully to what I said on that point. The former finance minister Mr. Wilson, indicated in 1989 with the support of the government and Senate in 1990, and I quote again:"The government will continue to contribute to the financing of the program in difficult times when it is inappropriate to raise premiums and prudent to allow deficits to build in the unemployment account." Mr. Wilson said again in 1990 through Senator Simard: "Money will be made available to supplement the unemployment insurance account so that the premiums paid by the employers and the employees are not unduly high."
The former finance minister himself recognized that fact. This member refuses to recognize the proclamation of his own former finance minister.
I am really at a loss as to the logic of this government.
I believe premiums would increase if there were a necessity for the Unemployment insurance program benefits to increase, but what is lacking, and he fails to
June 17, 1991

recognize this, is the support from government. The unemployment insurance program is not an ordinary, private insurance program in the country, it is a government program administered by the government and the government must continue to be responsible and play its role if it is going to put its money where its mouth is.
We care about the deficit, and of course we are worried about the deficit, but we are as worried if not more worried about the deficit of lives as a consequence of the dismantling of our medicare system.


Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member from Winnipeg North.


Mr. Horner:: Pretty tough to listen to was it not?


Catherine S. Callbeck: No, I think it was an excellent speech. I think he had a lot of good comments. It is too bad that the members on the other side of the House would not put some of them into effect.
It is certainly true what he says about the federal government just trying to pass on part of the debt that it has created.
Now the hon. member discussed how he sees the reduction in transfer payments will affect the health system. I wonder if he would take a few minutes and briefly outline how he sees the reduction in these payments affecting the education system. I know in my own province of Prince Edward Island that students now are or will be faced next year with tuition increases of 15 per cent. The student loan programs have not increased since 1984. There is now a 3 per cent fee on student loans, plus the students are feeling the effects of the GST. They even have to pay the GST on books.
I know that in my riding office I have many students coming and looking for summer jobs, jobs they cannot get because of policies that this government has followed which have created a recession in this country.
I would like to hear the hon. member give his thoughts as to how he sees our education system being affected.


Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her excellent question. To indicate for the record before I go to her question, the western provinces
Government Orders
alone stands to suffer $8.5 billion over the next three years as a consequence of cuts in transfer payments.
Before I touch on the matter of education I should say I was prefacing my earlier comment on the physical and mental health of Canadians that stand to suffer as a consequence of cuts to health care funding. My colleague has identified a health equally important and that is the educational health of Canadians. No doubt in Manitoba alone tuition fees have been increased as a consequence. Scholarship programs have become fewer and universities are truly under the crunch as a consequence of cuts to transfer payments.
The end result will be the lack of necessary economic provisions for the youth of our country. If we are to be truly competitive, as has been indicated in an excellent speech entitled "Do Canadians Really Want to Compete?", we have to be competitive. To cut transfer payments at this time and reduce necessary funding for education there is no doubt that the youth of our country, the strength of the future, the leaders of the future, will stand to suffer.
I beg of this government for that additional reason to withdraw this Bill C-20.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to rise today and participate in the debate on Bill C-20, the act which will among other things freeze the per capita Established Programs Financing transfers, or EPF as it is known, and cut the Canada Assistance Plan, known as CAP, to the richer provinces thereby effectively crippling and possibly destroying our high standards of the education and medicare systems. At the very time when our neighbour is looking at our excellent medicare system and wishing to adopt it, this government wants to destroy it.
It is both my duty and privilege to reflect the views of my constituents in Parkdale-High Park and bring them to the floor of this House. They have elected me to express concerns on federal matters and I would like to begin by answering a question posed by one of my constituents. He asked me: "Jesse, don't you ever get frustrated in the House of Commons knowing that no matter what you say the government will bring in all its members and push through whatever legislation it wants to push through?"

June 17, 1991
Government Orders
He went on to remind me that there had been debate on the free trade agreement but all attempts by us to amend the bill were blocked. He reminded me that Canadians did not want the GST, but despite the debate in this House and hearings right across Canada, despite the thousands and thousands of petitions tabled in this House and in the other place, and despite the fact that many senators were listening and were ready to block the GST, this government appointed eight new senators and the will of the government over-rode the will of the people.
People in the Soviet Union and eastern Europe have been fighting that for 50 years, and what are we doing? We are going back to what the Soviet Union and the east European countries are throwing out in their political system.
Essentially my constituent was asking me why I just did not give up and let the government run roughshod over any opposition. He implied that Canada had a worse dictatorship than the one he left behind in eastern Europe. He thought it was worse because in eastern Europe under communism at least the people knew they had no hope of changing the minds of their leaders. He came to Canada thinking that the will of the people would be expressed by our parliamentary democracy and had found that it was not always so.
If the new Minister of Finance, a parliamentarian who has shown over the years he takes democracy seriously- I got to know him when we worked together on the transport committee and that is why I say that with all sincerity-takes a good look at this legislation which was drafted by the former minister and if he takes the time to listen to what we on this side of the House bring to this debate, he will do what is best for the majority of Canadians. He will do the honourable thing and withdraw Bill C-20.
There is still time to restore the fate of my constituent in our democracy. There is still time to ensure that high standards in health services and education which Canadians currently enjoy will be maintained.
This bill will reduce the amount of cash transfers to the provinces for post-secondary education and health. If the reductions continue as this government proposes, according to a statement issued by the National Council
of Welfare: "Federal cash payments to the provinces for medicare and higher education will end by 1997."
It also feels this is an estimate based on the best case scenario if the recession comes to an end soon. How can Canadians accept this? Our medicare and education systems are the envy of the world. Our standards of equality of service for all Canadians guarantee that a child bom into poverty has the same right to medical care and education as a child bom into wealth.
It means that every Canadian has the opportunity to live a healthy life and get a level of education which will enable them to have a good job and a good standard of living.
By reducing the transfer payments, this government is guaranteeing that children in the less affluent provinces will be stuck in a cycle of poverty. Their inability to afford an education will mean they get low-paying jobs or go on welfare. The reduction of federal money for medicare will mean the individual provinces control the health system.
They will inevitably lead to variations in the quality of service available to Canadians. Again, to quote the National Council of Welfare: "We could wind up with 12 vastly different provincial and territorial medicare systems." People in the poorer provinces would have to make do with health care services which are inferior to the services enjoyed by Canadians who happen to live in richer provinces.
Will this mean extra billing and user fees? I think it will. Will it mean that you better not have a premature baby in the maritimes because the incubators are not there? If you have a heart attack in Toronto, will there be a bed for you or not?


An hon. member:: Scare tactics.


Jesse Philip Flis: The hon. member says scare tactics. A friend of mine is now waiting for a bed in Toronto for a heart by-pass. If he does not get one soon, he will have to be flown to Saskatchewan and if he does not get an operation there, he will have to be flown to the United States, and that hon. member says: "Scare tactics."
Will Canadians in the north lose their airlifts to large hospitals? This could mean a lot of changes, but the change I am most afraid of is cash and carry medical care.
June 17, 1991

Canadians who have a post-secondary education and a job will be able to afford medical care. Canadians with grade 12 education or lower and the low paying jobs will not. Cash and carry medical care is not acceptable. I do not want to have to show my credit card before I can get into the emergency unit at St. Joseph's Health Centre in my constituency which is one of the best health care centres probably in the world, but it will not be if this government puts through this bill, Bill C-20.
I do not want to find that one of my constituents is denied medical attention because he or she is poor. I have many of these lining up in the food banks which are getting longer under this government. I want them to have first-rate health care when they need it.
Post-secondary education for the rich and grade 12 education for the poor is not acceptable. Education is an investment in our future, but tuition costs are so high already that it is a struggle for many families to send their sons and daughters to university and community college.
How will they be able to afford a higher education if the federal government cuts funding and tuition skyrockets? They will not. It is plain and simple.
Mr. Speaker, I know my time is up. I would just like to end by appealing to the government, please withdraw Bill C-20.


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


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, last week the many chiefs of Canada chose their new national chief, Mr. Ovide Mercredi. We wish him the very best.
Yesterday, another important election was held.

The Federation des communautes francophones et aca-diennes du Canada, formely known as the FFHQ, elected Mr. Raymond Bisson as its new president. Mr. Bisson, the current president of the Societe franco-manitobaine, is becoming the leader of some one million francophones outside Quebec. He works really hard for francophones and is their best advocate, while recognizing Canada's other realities: the majority, the native people and Canadians of other ethnic backgrounds or origins.
I am convinced that Mr. Bisson will do a lot for the development of the French-speaking communities, while at the same time respecting the others. We wish him every success.


PORK PRODUCERS
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, Canada has just won a major trade victory regarding pork exports to the United States. For the first time since the Free Trade Agreement was implemented, in January 1989, Canada has won over the US in a final round concerning one of the trade areas subject to the most heated debate between the two countries, namely shipments of fresh chilled and frozen pork.
This decision by an Extraordinary challenge committee will have positive effects for Canadian pork producers. Indeed, since the countervailing duty levy order will be repealed and the collection of duties stopped, approximately $20 million will be reimbursed to Canadian pork producers. This ruling by the committee reaffirms the benefits of the review system by a FTA binational panel on disputes regarding anti-dumpiong and countervailling duties. A great victory indeed Mr. Speaker, for the 4,300 Quebec pork producers and slaughterhouses, many of which reside in my riding.


NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, can Canadians have any confidence in the ability of health and welfare to regulate medical devices effectively?
On the evidence, the answer is an empathic "no". An extraordinary change to health and welfare regulations in 1989 concerning contraceptive sponges has meant that

spermicidal products can be sold on the Canadian market without any testing or checks to ensure safety or effectiveness.
We now learn that claims that these contraceptives are 90 per cent effective are far closer to 70 per cent, or worse than any other method of birth control.
Like the Meme breast implant, these faulty products are now on the market because health and welfare overruled its own competent scientists.
Now Canada, according to the World Health Organization, may be the only developed country which does not test or review spermicidal products.
Surely it is time for an immediately public enquiry into licensing and marketing of medical devices in Canada. Anything less betrays the trust that Canadians, particularly women, must have in medical products in the marketplace.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, resolution 541 of the Security Council of the United Nations condemns the division of the island of Cyprus and the formation of a Turkish Cypriot state. The de-occupation of the northern part of Cyprus and the withdrawal of Thrkish troops must be respected and enforced.
Turkey, which received strong international and economic support during the Persian Gulf crisis, should demonstrate its good will by moving toward the termination of the Cyprus problem.
I believe the time has come for the embarkation of a sincere and serious dialogue among Greece, Turkey and Cyprus so as to build a new climate of trust and understanding which would lead to concrete and lasting results.
The war in the gulf has shown that respect by all countries for the basic principles of international law and avoidance of the rise of violence in international relations are of vital importance for security in the world.


NOVA SCOTIA CLAM COMPANY
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands- Canso):: Mr. Speaker, six weeks ago the Nova Scotia Clam Company closed its doors and 250 people were thrown out of work.
Yesterday I attended a rally on their behalf at the clam plant site at Auld's Cove. Their message to the company, to the unions and to the federal and provincial governments was simple: "We want our jobs back now".
I hope this call will be heard. We cannot afford to lose 250 more jobs in Highlands-Canso and this company, with the proper support, has a bright future in Auld's Cove.
There is in Japan a promising new export market for its product. The hard lessons of developing this market have been learned. Most important, the workers are there. They are hard working. They are responsible and they take pride in their work. This is not the time for the company or the government to abandon them.
Two things are needed. One is a financial package that will enable the company to continue. This, I understand, is within reach. The other is assured access to the resource to process clams in Auld's Cove.
This is the minister of fisheries' job. He must not dissipate this access and these jobs by approving new licences to process these clams elsewhere, to flood the Japanese market, to foster destructive competition and to snuff out this young enterprise.


ISMAILI RUN FOR CHARITY
Mr. Bill Attewell (Markham-Whitchurch-Stouff-ville):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I had the pleasure to attend the ceremonies for the Seventh Annual Ismaili 10K Run for Charity. Over 1,300 runners participated.
I want to thank the Ismaili youth who has been planning this event for over six months and the leadership shown by President Nizar Kanji and many other community leaders, many of whom are from Markham.
June 17, 1991

The net proceeds of the run, which should exceed $50,000, will go to the North York General Hospital's Capital Campaign. The proceeds from previous runs have gone to such worthy causes as the Cancer Society, the Alzheimer Society, and the Heart and Stroke Foundation.
A special thanks to Apotex Inc., the Canadian owned pharmaceutical company that made a contribution of $20,000.
As I said in my remarks at the event, the Ismaili Muslim community deserves the congratulations of all Canadians for its Outreach programs to all communities. Its sincere caring and sharing is a model for all Canadians to emulate.


HUMAN RIGHTS ACT
Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, in 1986, five years ago, a special all-party committee unanimously urged the federal government to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, discrimination based on whether a person was a lesbian or a gay man.
The amendment was supported by all parties and the government at the time. This government said that it would introduce such an amendment to the Human Rights Act. The government has shamefully refused to act to this day.
The amendment goes beyond the charter and would guarantee protection against discrimination in the federal private sector and in the federal public sector. There are over 1.2 million Canadians in that group who would be covered by the amendment. There are 100,000 gay men and women in Canada. This is an important protection for those men and women which all parties have agreed they are entitled to and need. The time has come for this government to act.


CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Garth Turner: Mr. Speaker, today's Montreal Gazette publishes a story headlined "Backbench Upheaval-Tory MPs speaking out against the Government".
The story mentions me and several of my caucus colleagues as if we were some kind of rebels. It also quotes a member of the opposition saying he believes
Tory caucus members such as myself must have been hauled over the carpet by the political gods of the Conservative Party.
I have news for the opposition. Freedom and independence for MPs is a goal of this government. It was mentioned in the throne speech, and members of the caucus have taken that as a further encouragement to do exactly what those people who voted for us want us to do.
Canadians want MPs who are neither sheep nor cheerleaders. They do not want blind partisanship. They want instead common sense on the floor of the House of Commons. There is no revolt; just a bunch of members of Parliament over here doing their job.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds -Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, over the past weekend 135 residents of the province of Quebec were hosted by the people of Gananoque, a town on the shores of the St. Lawrence River here in eastern Ontario.
The weekend was a good will gesture sponsored by the common people of Gananoque and was dubbed "Between Neighbours". The people of Gananoque who initiated this project have every reason to feel very proud today for proving to Canadians everywhere that the best way to promote unity and understanding among Canadians is by reaching out to each other.
Congratulations, Gananoque, and may the good will which you project between neighbours become a model for all Canadians to emulate throughout the country.
Yes, Canadians do want to remain united, and the best proof we have is seen in projects such as the one demonstrated by the people of Gananoque and their 135 visitors from the province of Quebec over the past weekend.


GOVERNEMENT SPENDING
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the people of Abitibi and I wish to congratulate and thank you for your courageous decision to cancel the annual reception at your residence in Kingsmere, which costs approximately $15,000.

June 17, 1991
This goes to show that our government means what it says, now that we are in a recession. In fact, I urge all federal departments, the Governor General of Canada and the Senate to charge a "user fee" for this summer's festivities. Another alternative would be to immediately cancel summer parties held at taxpayers' expense.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you on behalf of all Canadians.
is attributed to the higher level of taxation imposed by our federal and provincial governments.
A major survey done by Ernst and Young found that 72 per cent of those surveyed had gone shopping in the U.S. in the last 30 days. Gasoline accounted for 36 per cent of the total dollars spent by customers. Of those, 68 per cent said that if gas prices were comparable they would not shop in the U.S.

The fact of the matter is that lower gas prices are luring Canadian consumers south and once there they are buying other retail goods.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians are hearing speculation that the Department of National Defence may be returning to a tri-service set-up with three separate basic training facilities.
CFB Cornwallis presently trains recruits for all branches of the military. This avoids the cost of duplication that would arise if each branch had to carry out its own basic training.
Canada has today two streams for new basic recruit training: English at Cornwallis and French at St. Jean, Quebec.
In 1990, Canada graduated only 5,600 new recruits- one-third from St. Jean and two-thirds from Cornwallis-at a cost of $3,200 per trainee at Cornwallis and $5,300 per graduate at St. Jean.
If the cabinet is serious about saving money, it had better look at the $12.8 billion rather than look at the basic training which barely trains enough recruits in Canada.


CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, a significant motivator in cross-border shopping is gasoline. High taxes on gasoline are having a deleterious effect and are driving consumers southward.
Our retailers in border communities sell gasoline at 56 per cent more per litre than their American counterparts. Approximately 76 per cent of the price difference
In order for us to remain competitive, our federal and provincial governments must take a serious look at taxation of gasoline. A graduated tax approach, an across-the-board tax reduction possibly financed by GST revenue from the underground economy or some other approach all should be seriously considered to help address the whole cross-border shopping issue.


HONG KONG VETERANS
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, the belated Japanese apology to the Canadian survivors of Japanese prisoner of war camps is not enough.
No group of Canadian POWs in any conflict involving Canada has endured more pain and brutality in the most hideous and unacceptable circumstances. This four-year legacy of cruel and harsh treatment continues to haunt many and their families today.
The Hong Kong Veterans Association has been pursuing a claim for just and reasonable compensation before the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva for the slave labour they performed at gun-point.
The Prime Minister has told them this is a futile claim and that they should seek redress from their own government, and he is right. However, he is dead wrong when he says there is no money for them.
Their circumstances are special and justify compensation. They and their families should get it now from their own country for which they suffered so much but served so bravely.
June 17, 1991


KOREAN WAR VETERANS
Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, this weekend I was questioned by individuals in two branches of the Royal Canadian Legion wanting to know if and when Canada was going to recognize our Korean war veterans.
I am sure that these two veterans and all members of this House are pleased with today's announcement that a Canadian volunteer service medal will be presented to our veterans of the Korean war.
Today's announcement was timely as these same veterans will be observing Korea Day at the National War Memorial and cenotaphs across the country on Sunday.
We can look with pride at the Canadians who volunteered to serve with the United Nations, and we must never forget the supreme sacrifice made by the 516 Canadians who died in defence of South Korea.
For 40 years our veterans wanted their volunteer service recognized by their own country. Today's announcement is a well deserved and overdue recognition.


CHILD CARE
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, this government found money for a war but nothing for Canadian children.
In 1984 the Prime Minister promised a national child care program as a top priority. In 1986 a child care task force travelled Canada. We were told repeatedly that over a million pre-school children urgently needed licensed care and many were at risk.
The government responded with a token $200 for mothers at home, nothing for day care centres.
In 1990 the Prime Minister chaired a world summit on children urging nations to give every child a better future. Then he came home and cut child care funds by limiting the Canada Assistance Plan.
Today, another generation of one million kids needs child care-87 per cent of these are in unlicensed arrangements or have no child care at all while working mothers are frantic.
Oral Questions
When will this government learn, as most European countries have, that child care is an essential service and a social investment?
Let's turf the Tories out and get on with it.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister.
During his trip to Germany the Prime Minister said that he was planning to cut back our forces in Europe, but he would not say by how much.
I would have thought that the proper way to do this would be to withdraw the old policy first and then announce a new one, not to do it bit by bit before we know where we stand.
I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister why the policy was announced in Europe to withdraw from there when the government is not ready to tell Canadians what the new defence policy is.


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think we should be very clear about the fact that Canada believes in NATO, that it participates in NATO and that it believes its participation in NATO plays a key role in its defence policy.
Second, the geostrategic situation in Europe has been profoundly changed by the dismantling of the Warsaw Pact and the reunification of the two Germany's. As a result, all our allies, including NATO, are reviewing their defence policy in Europe. The government already announced it was withdrawing 1,400 members of the Canadian forces in its 1990 budget. This exercise is now in progress. Furthermore, the government, like practically all its allies, is reviewing its defence policy, and once it has been discussed and accepted by cabinet, it will be made public. The government, the Minister of Defence and several other ministers have made it clear within the last few weeks that Canada will reduce its presence in Europe.

June 17, 1991
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, agree it is time for a new defence policy, because the 1987 policy was based on the Cold War concept, and at the time, we already knew the Cold War was over. It makes perfectly good sense to have another policy. However, we would like to hear from the minister why the government announced a defence policy in Europe without having a new one in Canada, without asking Canadians what they think about the matter. And I would like to ask the minister if and when Canadians will be consulted, before these policies are announced piecemeal as was the case on the weekend.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I realize the Leader of the Opposition should be informed of a number of situations in this country, but I may remind him that I had to answer the same question several times since the beginning of May. I have repeatedly made it clear, as I did in papers released to the public, that Canada would reduce its presence in Europe while remaining a participant in NATO strategy. This is not new. Anyone who wanted to know about these issues was in a position to do so. On the other hand, since Canada is part of an alliance, it is advisable for us to consult our principal allies before defining, in concrete and practical terms, the position of our allies for submission to Cabinet, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, my next question is directed to General Masse- I beg your pardon, to the Minister of National Defence and Marshal Foch-
My question for the Minister of National Defence is simply this: In statements made on the weekend, the Prime Minister indicated that the government intended to close a number of military bases in Canada. I want to the ask the minister whether this time the government will take certain precautions and, if it has to close military bases in Canada, it will ensure it has economic strategies to cope with the problems the communities in question will be faced with once these closings have been announced, and that they will not wait until the deed is done to try and find economic remedies.


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, I can inform the Captain of the Liberal Party that that is exactly what I intend to do.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister made a major policy statement on defence regarding our military posture in NATO last Friday. He made the statement after consultation and after having been, I think the term he used was swayed and impressed by the German chancellor.
After three years without a defence policy, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell this House when he will have public consultations and be swayed and impressed with Canadians?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, as soon as discussions with my colleagues are finished and a decision has been made, it will be made public.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of National Defence.
Can the minister give us the assurance that before announcing that certain military bases will be closed, economic impact studies will be conducted, their findings published and viable economic alternatives submitted?


Marcel Masse: Mr. Speaker, Canadian bases and their infrastructure must first of all meet the requirements of the Canadian Forces as set forth in a defence policy. That is the primary objective of a base.
Obviously, these bases also have an economic impact on the region, but their primary objective is to serve the Canadian Forces.
Third, it is no secret that there are too many bases in Canada, considering the requirements of our Canadian Forces. Obviously, their number will be reduced, Mr. Speaker.
June 17, 1991


CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs.
When the Spicer commission was first struck, Canadians were told that it was a commission which would listen to them and would report back directly to them, not a reported vetted by the government. Yet today we understand, it is reported, that members of the government have received portions or all of that report before the report has been given to Canadians.
Will the minister responsible immediately table any portions of that report that his government has, or all of that report if the government has it, so that we can keep the faith with Canadians and say that the report of the Spicer commission will go to Canadians first and not vetted by the government?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to give that assurance. I have not seen the report or any portions of it. Certainly I have no intention to vet it.
I think that this kind of public participation by Canadians is exactly the kind of innovation that we need to achieve, working in close concert with the parliamentary system that has served this country so well for so long.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
I would understand from that that the minister says his government has not seen any of the copies of that report. I would again ask him, if that is not the case, if he would table those reports that he has seen.
Today, on another matter, the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, along with the vast majority of Canadians, presented the idea once again of having a more open constitutional process. Yet we see the government again creating a parliamentary committee with 10 unelected senators and the same old style that has gone on before.
Will the minister listen to groups like the National Action Committee and many others across this country and Canadians who are saying that this time there must be a more open constitutional process? Will he withdraw his proposal and bring back a proposal that includes Canadians?
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to withdraw our proposal. I have seen the proposal of the National Action Committee. I was struck that what it was talking about was a constituent assembly for the rest of Canada, something which by definition Quebec would be excluded from.
I could not help but notice the article in The Globe and Mail of Saturday by Lysiane Gagnon reporting on the hon. member's convention in Halifax. It says:
The NDP held a convention and Quebec didn't come.
I do not want to be in a situation where this country holds a constitutional discussion and Quebec does not come.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that there can be representatives from Quebec. There will be representatives on his parliamentary committee, I assume. Those same members could also be on a constituent assembly.


VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: I would like to touch on another subject, Mr. Speaker. The government kept the door shut this morning and refused to meet with the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. Yet, 52 percent of the population, women, live in fear. Violence against women is still rampant. What does the government intend to do to make this violence socially unacceptable and promote zero tolerance, as we say? Will this government finally realize that what is required is a combination of shelters, public education programs and anti-racist training throughout the whole justice system?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for the Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the issue of violence against women is uppermost on the agenda of this government, including many ministers, many whom you saw rising. It is not only the minister of health and welfare who announced the $136 million family balance initiative. It was my colleagues the Secretary of State, the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice, all of whom are involved in bringing forward initiatives including of course the most impor-

Oral Questions
tant one which will be the national inquiry announced in the Speech from the Throne.
I have been discussing it with my colleagues on both sides of the House. We really hope it will help us as a country come to grips with this issue and find real solutions and plans of action which will involve women and the provinces and ourselves to finally solve this problem for all of Canada.
*
*


GRANDE-BALEINE PROJECT
Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister of the Environment. Tbesday, in this House, the minister said he was waiting to see what Quebec will decide about the Great Whale project. Quebec made its decision known the very same day: the roads and the project will be treated separately. For a year now the federal government has been making excuses and looking for reasons not to take on its responsibility. Now, it has ran out of excuses. There is no way out. My question is this: In view of Quebec's final decision, will the minister immediately set up a single comprehensive federal environmental assessment on the project as a whole, by that I mean not a split study, Mr. Speaker?


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, before going any further in our approach to the environmental assessment of the Great Whale project, we will sound out all interested parties, including the Quebec government as well as the Inuit and the Cree. The hon. member should know that the Quebec decision came precisely after a meeting where Inuit, Crees and the federal and provincial governments all sat around the same table to review the approach to the environmental assessment for the Great Whale project. We said, and so did the Quebec environment minister, that we would prefer doing one single environmental assessment for the whole project. Now, it seems that they maintained their original position. We will see what approach we can take regarding this project, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, all of the soundings have been held. The minister's colleague, the minister of Indian affairs, expressed some puzzlement this morning as to the government's position in terms of James Bay.
Some weeks ago, Quebec's minister of the environment begged Ottawa to support the environmental cause. He said:
We need the federal government to do its job. I'm puzzled about
the absence of the federal government on matters of federal
jurisdiction.
That was Quebec's minister of the environment. He is not the only one who is puzzled. The minister of Indian affairs is puzzled. The Canadian people are puzzled.
Will the minister state unequivocally here and now that not only in the case of James Bay but never will the government allow a major project to go ahead anywhere in the country within its jurisdiction without a full public environmental review completed before a shovel hits the ground?
Before this minister or the Prime Minister lecture the Germans about the environment, they had better make darned sure they have clean hands at home.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, the member says that some people are puzzled. I must admit that I am also puzzled by the attitude of the member for LaSalle-Emard who would want us to go in there without talking to the Government of Quebec. Only two weeks ago he was on his feet here in the House of Commons saying that this government was intruding into the provincial government's area of jurisdiction in the area of regional economic development. His party was saying that here in the House. He felt that the way of doing productive business in this country was to talk to the other level of government.
We propose to do that business in a way that respects the jurisdictions of every level of government. Our approach in this specific case of Grande-Baleine is based on our environmental concerns and on doing an environmental assessment that is comprehensive. We intend to follow that up, and the member should help us with executing that mandate.
June 17, 1991


WOMEN'S PROGRAMS
Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
Will the minister stand in this House today and assure the women of Canada that there will be no further substantive cuts both to funding for women's programs and to funding for women's groups?


Hon. Robert de Cotret (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to reiterate what I told the women's groups that I met last week. There are no further funding cuts to women's programs in this country this year.
The amount, as a matter of fact, is going to rise. Every group has received, if you like, an advance payment of 25 per cent of what they had received last year. The final allocations will be made public to every group before the end of this month.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, in light of that seemingly good news, and in light of today's emphasis on women's groups through the NAC lobby with some caucuses in this Chamber, I would like to ask the minister if he would therefore stand and make a further commitment to restore the funding to women's programs and to women's groups to its pre-1988 levels and to index such funding.


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned a few minutes ago, I made that commitment. I met with the president and some members of the executive of NAC last Wednesday. I met with the whole group last Friday. We talked about this.
The commitment is really simple and it can be found in a rather usual place. Look at Part III of the estimates. It is very clear. The funding is there. It will be continued, and I can say that the priorities are also listed.
The priorities are the following. We are very concerned about violence, violence toward women, family violence. We are concerned about those women who are doubly disadvantaged. Obviously some programs in that area will be enhanced. We are also very concerned about the efforts we are making and have been making to
Oral Questions
achieve over-all equality for women and full participation and access to Canadian society.


CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, today women from across Canada expressed their outrage that the epidemic of violence against women continues to destroy their lives.
Government members claim to be committed to changing that. They point continually to their recent announcement of a $136 million program to fight family violence, but this announcement is merely a smoke screen for the real actions of this government.
In reality, only one-third of this money will be spent before the next election. Over the same period, programs which support women and children at risk will lose $155 million through the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan.
In the name of ending violence against women, will the Deputy Prime Minister remove the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan and spend the money for the family violence initiative program before the next election?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made by my predecessor last February about the $126 million over four years for the family violence program will be respected. There has never been a question that we will not spend that money.
At the same time, we are working on a strategy dealing with children in light of the commitment made by the Prime Minister at a convention last September. However as good managers we do not spend the money before. We spend the money after it has been decided to spend the money, not before.


Dawn Black: Mr. Speaker, the minister of health gives us these vague kinds of responses. The fact of the matter is that according to their own figures they are cutting $155 million to families and women through the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan.

June 17, 1991
Oral Questions
Will the minister of health stand today in the House and make a real commitment to ending violence against women in our society and announce an end to the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, there is not a Canadian in this country who does not want to stop violence against women. It is not just ministers, not just members of Parliament; every Canadian wants to stop that kind of disaster against women.
It is more than saying what you want. We put in $126 million. We gave a billion dollars in transfer payments to the provinces.
As minister of health I want to continue to work with the provinces. It is what we do and will continue to do. I will meet my counterparts this week in Toronto, and we will look at the problems with the CAP.
However, I will return the question to my friend: Are you ready to help me fight against violence against women?


HOUSING
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister responsible for Housing.
At the present time, 17,000 families in Toronto are on a waiting list for public housing. Refugees have also been added to this list as potential clients.
I would like to ask the Minister what he intends to do to address the housing issue in the city of Toronto?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I have a meeting scheduled with the minister of housing for the province of Ontario. My colleague opposite knows that we have only so many resources available for this, but we are prepared to make any commitment that we can to improve the lot of these people. I can assure him of our commitment to do whatever is possible under the circumstances.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the 17,000 families there are 5,000 seniors and over 2,000 people with special needs.
Does the minister think that the answer he just gave is adequate to provide a roof for this large number of people waiting in the larger metropolitan Ibronto area?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, my colleague knows that since 1986 our policy has been to target resources to those most in need, and there have been considerable resources put aside in our housing policy for seniors, for those who have special needs, and we will continue to do this.
However, he knows as well that there is only so much that can be done by the federal government. We seek partnerships with public, private and other groups to assist us in this regard. We will continue to try to show leadership.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of the Environment, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister?
When the green plan was announced last December, $250 million was set aside for the Department of Indian Affairs to produce a plan of action for dealing with water and sewage in Canada's poorest communities, the reserves throughout Canada.
Does the minister know that subsequently the Department of Indian Affairs has ruled that hook-ups are the responsibility of individual home dwellers?
In other words the poorest of Canadians, where two out of three homeowners are unemployed and where the average income is $9,000, are expected to pay $10,000 to hook up the sewage system. How does the ministry expect these people come up with the $10,000 to provide clean water and a sewage system for their homes?


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right. There was quite a substantial amount of money provided specifically for water and sewer to aboriginal peoples.
There have been ongoing discussions with those groups, and particularly in his province of Manitoba. Considering that the base budgets of Indian affairs are 60 per cent administered by the bands, those discussions are ongoing. I think it is that sort of approach that will lead to a resolution of the problem the hon. member raises.
June 17, 1991


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
Although discussions are ongoing, the minister does not seem to realize that Indian affairs has taken what seemed to be a nice public relations scheme giving a lot of money to these communities and has carried on as under the old plan, that is to say forcing individual residents to pay for these connections.
The construction season is almost half over. I want assurances from the minister that every effort will be made to increase the construction program so that work begins this summer.


Ian Angus Ross Reid: Mr. Speaker, particularly in Manitoba there have been meetings, discussions between the department and a subcommittee of the Manitoba chiefs. There is scheduled before the end of the month another meeting to discuss exactly the best way to proceed.
I like him look forward to a good resolution to the problem based on the co-operation between the government and the bands.


PS 2000
Ms. Joy Langan (Mission-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board.
The government is currently at the bargaining table with the Public Service Alliance. We know that the government has offered zero per cent in the first year and three per cent in each of the second and third years.
Is the minister aware that half the alliance members are women, most are at the lower end of the pay scale, and a freeze on wages in the first year means that these women, already living close to the poverty line, will be taking a cut in real wages? Will the minister tell us what this says about the government's commitment to pay equity?
Oral Questions


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to reassure the hon. member that pay equity stays there, I mean will be implemented. During the course of the last budget we had to make very difficult decisions in a number of fields, including freezing the wage budget which affects all public servants.
I am fully aware that this impacts particularly on employees with lower wages. Also it could in the course of the PS 2000 reform possibly be a threat to our women employees. We have given very strict instructions to our managers to be very attentive to this so that employment equity and pay equity are preserved throughout this exercise.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I hope when the minister says that "pay equity stays there", he does not mean stays there on the shelf.
The minister is expected to table PS 2000 legislation tomorrow. Will the minister assure women working in the public sector that they will not find themselves, under this legislation, faced with a strategic rewards management approach which will really mean: if the boss likes you, you will get the goodies; if he or she does not like you, look out. Will the minister assure women that will not be in his legislation.


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I think the progress we have made during the course of the mandate of this government speaks for itself.
I would like to remind the hon. member of the situation we were in when we came of office as far as management positions were concerned. We only had two women ambassadors; we now have 13 women ambassadors. We had seven deputy ministers; we now have 22 deputy ministers. We had 16 members of boards; we now have 31. We could go on and on.
This government is attentive. We are also the government in the area of pay equity which has set aside $76 million each year to improve on that. We have also paid, something the Liberals never did, $317 million to help improve this. These are real facts.

Oral Questions


NATURAL GAS INDUSTRY
Mr. A1 Johnson (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
It is clear that the California Public Utilities Commission and the U.S. Senate energy committee are making a co-ordinated attack on Canada's gas industry.
Using the Dominici Wirth amendment-and there are other demands which would prevent Canadian gas producers from getting the same price in California as their American counterparts and which would extend U. S. power over Canadian pipelines-they are trying to break the sanctity of contracts and the commitments in the free trade agreement.
The Alberta government is taking steps to stop this. What is our government prepared to do?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, there are two points.
First of all, the California Public Utilities Commission has been holding hearings in an attempt to reopen contracts that exist between Alberta and California shippers and suppliers.
Alberta primarily, but western Canada has been a very good supplier of natural gas to California back to 1961. The Dominici Wirth amendment to the national energy strategy which was proposed by the Senate committee is written in such a way that it is targeted directly, we feel, to Canadian pipelines.
We have made representations directly to the U.S. government. I have made them personally to the Secretary of Energy, Admiral Watkins. Our embassy in Washington has been very fully informed and is constantly advising both the executive as well as Congress of our objections.
We feel that this is a violation not only of the contractual obligations of both parties, but is also not in the spirit of the free trade agreement.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration.
Forty thousand members from the Khalsa Dabar Sikh Temple in Mississauga, Ontario have had to resort to court action in an attempt to secure for their priests the same rights that a directive from the Quebec region immigration office guarantees to all priests: specifically, that their immigration request for a credible basis refugee claim be presented without an interview or hearing.
Since the minister, in referring to those priests, said "They are at the end of the process; they should just get out", will he tell this House if he read their files before he decided to interfere in an ongoing case?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member pointed out, this case is before the courts and it would be improper for me to comment on it at this stage.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, he has already commented on it.
The correspondence between the Ontario region office and the lawyers for the priests indicate that neither the national headquarters nor the regional headquarters had an awareness of the files before the minister decided to make his statements public. Moreover, those priests have at their disposal at least 12 more administrative procedures before refugee hearings.
How can this minister now expect that any of them will get a fair hearing anywhere in Canada or elsewhere when he makes judicial pronouncements without jurisdiction and without ever having seen the files?


Bernard Valcourt: Mr. Speaker, this is the member who held a press conference. I noted in his press conference on that very topic before the action was started six most glaring misstatements which he made to the people of the community in question.
All I can tell the hon. member is that the cases he is referring to were refugee applicants. We have a refugee determination system that is probably the most generous in the world. That process is one at arm's length from the minister and is following its proper course.
If he wants me to interfere politically in a system that is at arm's length from the minister, my answer is: Thanks, but no thanks.
June 17, 1991


TAXATION
Mr. Greg Thompson (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and is with regard to a meeting that he had last week with his provincial counterparts in Prince Edward Island.
At that meeting they brought in a process aimed at giving the provinces the power to set their own income tax levels independently of Ottawa.
My question is in relation to this.
The minister has stated that he does not have a problem with a system that maintains a degree of simplicity and does not complicate the present system, but he has also reportedly said that if this new system or new method, if we do move to it, is just a question of optics where it creates the impression that provinces have greater tax autonomy.
Are we looking at real change for the right reasons, or are we looking at change merely for the sake of change which will or could add some confusion to the already confusing mess the taxpayer presently faces?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, there was no such power granted as the hon. member suggests. What we did was decide to deal with this issue through the release of a discussion paper.
As the hon. member knows, since 1962 there have been federal-provincial tax agreements which have provided for a great degree of harmonization and co-ordination. It is clearly the objective of both levels of government to ensure that there will be that continuance of harmonization and co-ordination.
Oral Questions
The provinces want to have more flexibility in terms of personal income tax. It is for that reason they have asked the federal government to engage in discussions about new tax agreements that could be in place consistent with the policy of co-ordination, harmonization, transparency and simplicity.
It is with that spirit that we will engage in a public dialogue to see whether in fact we can improve the system.


LINGUISTIC MINORITIES
Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.
Some organisations, like the Federation des commu-nautes francophones et acadiennes du Canada, formerly known as FFHQ, have serious concerns about changes that could be made to official languages.
Could the Deputy Prime Minister give a commitment to this House and to the Canadian people that no constitutional changes will be made by this government which might compromise the language rights of our minorities?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I think I can answer by outlining what this government and our Prime Minister, Mr. Mulroney, have done over the years to protect language rights. We have promoted the linguistic duality of this country by consistently standing for the rights of linguistic minorities outside and inside Quebec.
What we have done since 1984, is a good indication of our position in the future.


Ron J. Duhamel: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister.
In view of the acrimony, the bitterness, the conflict, and in fact the discontent caused by legislation such as Bill 178, Quebec's sign law, as well as Saskatchewan's and Alberta's legislative decisions which reduce the status of French in their respective provinces, will the minister confirm that his government has no intentions of making provinces or territories responsible for minority language policy or its implementation?


Robert René de Cotret: Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat for the hon. member in English what I just said in French.
We have always been very staunch defenders of minority language rights: French outside Quebec and

June 17, 1991
Oral Questions
English in Quebec. That is a commitment we took a long time ago. We have acted on that commitment. It is a commitment that we maintain and it is a commitment that we will respect in years to come.


HEALTH CARE
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister.
At this morning's meeting of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women concerns were expressed at the erosion of our national health care system, yet last week the Group of 22 asked for the abandonment of national health care.
Further, the minister of health said in response to a question that in regard to medicare Quebec will by 1996 "be able to manage as it pleases" .
Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House whether his government supports the position of the Group of 22 and the minister of health, or will he assure this House that there will continue to be a nationally financed medicare system with national standards?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have answered outside the House questions with regard to the very useful deliberations by the Group of 22, prominent Canadians such as Allan Blakeney and others among them.
I think it would be premature for any of us now to comment in detail upon the particular proposals that were brought forward by this wide ranging group of constitutional experts.
I think it is entirely helpful that serious, concerned, informed Canadians representing a broad cross-section of youths are turning their attention to ways in which we can reform this federation. There will be opportunities for members of this House and of the other place to do that more actively and consistently in the fall if the House agrees to establish a joint committee of this House and the other place, which is the means by which we have an opportunity to respect the parliamentary traditions of the country in a way that would allow the province of Quebec to take part in those discussions.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister of health. I am not surprised after that response that the women of Canada are worried out their health care system.
Will the minister of health assure us that at the federal-provincial meeting of health ministers on Wednesday in Toronto he will make no federal constitutional proposals that health become exclusive provincial responsibility? Will he ensure the ministers of health that the federal government will restore federal cash payments so that we can once again have a medicare system from coast to coast to coast that meets national standards?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my friend asked a question about the health care system in Canada. He knows very well that even the Americans consider that we have the best system in the world. They have not said that we had in 1984; they say we have the best system of the world today. The reason why is because this government has provided the necessary resources to the provinces to manage that health care system.
What we will do, with the ministers of health, is find a way within the periods where we are in terms of restriction in resources to give the best services to Canadian men but particularly women, children, senior citizens, and so on.
I am proud to say that what this government has done for this health care system has been done so well that even all countries in the world come to Canada to see the way we work.


CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General.
For several months now our Correctional Service prison guards across the country have been threatening to strike this summer over low wages, reduced staff levels and insufficient training.
Can the minister tell this House what his department intends to do if prison guards do strike? How will he ensure that public safety is not jeopardized and when will he begin to address these concerns of prison staff?


Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as the House knows, the negotiations are in the hands of the President of the Treasury Board. I have every confidence in Correctional Service Canada that the employees will act in an appropriate manner.


Derek Vincent Lee: Mr. Speaker, the government can afford to spend $3 million on new uniforms so that guards will not look as institutional to prisoners, but the government does not seem to want to spend the money to address valid concerns of prison guards. I ask the minister how and, just as important, when will he address the concerns of Correctional Service employees. Will he abstain from brinks-manship and will he commit to address their wages, increase staff levels and improve training programs so that CSC can fulfil better its own mandate?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that my hon. friend raised the issue of uniforms. First, they are cheaper than the old ones. Second, they are being phased in and, third, they were agreed upon in consultation with the unions.


KOREAN WAR VETERANS
Douglas Fee: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I am sure that all members of this House appreciated the announcement made earlier this day that Canadian veterans of the Korean war are going to be eligible to receive a Canadian Volunteer Service Medal.
The announcement, however, did not mention the veterans who are no longer with us, those who were either killed in action or have subsequently died. I would like to know from the minister if their relatives or next of kin are going to be eligible to receive the medal on behalf of the deceased and, if so, how they would go about applying for them.


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important to note that some 26,000 Canadian men and women did volunteer to serve with the United Nations Canadian troops fighting with the United Nations in Korea some 40 years ago. I am delighted the government, with the support of almost
Oral Questions
all, in fact maybe all hon. members in this House, supported the issuance of a volunteer medal for their service there.
I might mention that there is a process by which deceased veterans, the next of kin of the 516 who died over there or their families, can now apply. It follows a normal order of eligibility. They can apply through a process that will be made public very shortly.


CANADA LABOUR CODE
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. For many months, I have been trying to get preventive withdrawal of pregnant workers in federally regulated businesses included in the Canada Labour Code. So far, I have received the co-operation of Conservative, Liberal and NDP members in this House, with the exception of the Bloc quebecois. Could the minister tell the House today whether the government intends to take this issue seriously this year?


Hon. Marcel Danis (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to thank the hon. member for Abitibi for his interest in this matter. As the hon. member is aware, the Canada Labour Code contains a number of measures to protect workers, including pregnant and nursing women. I am currently consulting with groups representing these women and with employers, and I expect that this fall I will be able to table the appropriate legislation.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Don Mclnnes, Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister responsible for Housing for the Province of Nova Scotia.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.

Routine Proceedings POINT OF ORDER


MOTION M-330
Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order following debate this morning surrounding Motion No. M-330 presented by the hon. member for Skeena.
My understanding from the debate this morning is that there was a broad consensus here in the House on its content. There was also an amendment proposed by the hon. member for LaSalle-Emard, seconded by the member for Davenport, relating to this motion.
Members for Timiskaming and Surrey-White Rock-South Langley also participated in this debate, as did the member for Davenport, of course the member for LaSalle-Emard, and the member for Skeena.
After consultation, if this meets with Your Honour's approval and with the consent of the House, I would propose, seconded by the member for LaSalle-Emard and of course seconded by the member for Skeena, the following motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of preserving and protecting in its natural state at least 12 per cent of Canada by working co-operatively with the provincial and territorial governments and assisting them to complete the protected area networks by the year 2000.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, not only do we agree with the minister, we want to congratulate all members of this House on taking an initiative that reflects, I am sure, the desires of all Canadians. We second the motion.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister, the member for LaSalle-Emard and the rest of the House for their consideration of this important environmental resolution.


Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, unlike the other parties, we did not have a chance to consider the various elements of the motion, and we would like to reserve judgment. Consequently, without
prior consultation, we cannot give unanimous consent at this time.


Jean J. Charest: Mr. Speaker, if I understood the hon. member for Shefford correctly, he said that he preferred to reserve his consent. It is true that we did not have a chance to consult the hon. member for Shefford. If you agree, I and my colleagues from LaSalle-Emard and Skeena could consult the hon. member for Shefford and get back to you as soon as possible on the matter of unanimous consent.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is agreed that the matter be reserved for a few minutes to give an opportunity for consultation with all members.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


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



FAMILY LAW COMMITTEE


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table on behalf of the Minister of Justice the report of the Federal-Provincial-Territorial Family Law Committee Child Support, Public Discussion Paper: pensions alimentaires pour enfants, document de travail public.
June 17, 1991



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATIONS


Ms. Nicole Roy-Arcelin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34(1), I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the activity report of the Canadian section of the International Association of French-Speaking Parliamentarians.



SCRUTINY OF REGULATIONS


Derek Vincent Lee: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today the first report of the Standing Joint Committee on the Scrutiny of Regulations. The report deals with the mandate of the committee and some procedural aspects of the committee's work.
I would point out for the benefit of House leaders that it has been customary over the last couple of decades for the first report of this committee to be concurred in by the House. I would look into this over the next two days or so.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition to present that has been certified correct by the clerk of petitions. It is signed by residents of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick.
The petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to support the NDP plan to restore VIA Rail service cut on January 15, 1990, to maintain and, where appropriate, upgrade remote services on which many Canadians rely, to provide a legislative mandate for VIA Rail and make available to VIA the resources which it needs to become
Routine Proceedings
a modem passenger rail system in a class with those throughout the rest of the western world.


Mr. David D. Stupich (Nanaimo-Cowichan):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition that has been certified correct under Standing Order 36. The petitioners urge the Minister of Communications to oppose Unitel's bid to compete with Canada's telephone companies in long distance service.
They also urge the Minister of Communications to consult with all affected parties and to hold local hearings in their community before deciding the fate of Canada's telecommunications system.


Mr. Rod Laporte (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise today to present two petitions. The first petition is from a number of farmers from the province of Saskatchewan who are concerned about this government's attack on the Canadian Wheat Board.
They call upon this government to reinstate oats under the Canadian Wheat Board and to give oats and barley the same protection under the Canadian Wheat Board Act as wheat has.


Rodney Edward Laporte: Madam Speaker, as well I have a petition from a number of Canadians who are concerned about Unitel.
They urge the Minister of Communications to oppose Unitel's bid to compete with Canada's telephone companies in long distance service. They also urge the Minister of Communications to consult with all affected parties, specifically those citizens living outside Canada's urban areas who will be impacted severely by deregulation.
They are concerned about the future of rural Canada.


Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition on behalf of the 3,523 residents of my riding of Cochrane-Superior, more specifically the town of Kapuskasing and surrounding municipalities, on the subject of the possible implementation of the Amos plan at Spruce Falls.

June 17, 1991
Routine Proceedings
If this plan is implemented it will result in the loss of
1,200	direct jobs and an estimated 5,000 to 6,000 indirect jobs. Such a development would devastate the local economy, jeopardize the ability of municipalities to function effectively and cause a mass exodus of skilled labour in the region.
Therefore the petitioners are asking the Parliament of Canada to support the Spruce Falls Power and Paper.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have petitions with respect to the taxing of books, which is a tax to impose ignorance. They continue to protest the GST because taxing books is a terrible mortgage on our future. It unduly affects the sale of Canadian books and magazines. Book purchases by our schools and libraries have decreased by 10 per cent.
The petitioners wish to bring to the attention of this House that some foreign publishers have refused to ship books and materials to Canada because these book sellers are required to become Canadian tax collectors. Bureaucracy may be flourishing under the GST, but the flow of reading material is not.
They call on this government, which has said in its Speech from the Throne that it wants to obliterate illiteracy, improve education and ensure having a better educated population, to withdraw its tax on goods and services and to reinstate postal subsidy on community newspapers and Canadian magazines.


Mr. Robert E. Skelly (Comox-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I have a petition in which the undersigned petitioners call upon Parliament to support the NDP plan to restore VIA Rail services which were cut on January 15, 1990, maintain and, where appropriate, upgrade remote services on which many Canadians rely, provide a legislated mandate for VIA Rail and make available to VIA the resources which it needs to become a modem passenger rail system in a class with those throughout the western world.
This petition is signed by many people from Allard-ville, New Brunswick all the way through to Kitchener, Ontario.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 36 to present a petition from petitioners throughout Canada, particularly in Quebec as well as in Ontario, who petition Parliament to bring forward immediately an amendment to add sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
I would like to add that this has already been done in Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Yukon.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Saskatoon-Humboldt):: Madam Speaker, VIA Rail seems to be almost gone but not forgotten.
I rise on behalf of a number of petitioners from Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland who ask that the government consider restoring the VIA Rail services, maintain and, where appropriate, upgrade remote services so that Canadians can rely on a good and effective transportation system.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I stand to present a petition today signed by a number of residents from Chilliwack, Nanaimo, Vancouver, and other areas throughout B.C.
The petitioners are very concerned about the application by Unitel Communications now before the CRTC. They are urging the Minister of Communications to oppose Unitel's bid to compete with Canada's telephone companies in the long distance telephone market.
Furthermore, they urge the minister to hold local hearings in rural and interior communities before deciding the fate of Canada's telecommunications system.


Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Madam Speaker, I would like to present a petition which has been signed by a great number of people from British Columbia. It deals with the government's 1986 promise to take whatever measures necessary to ensure that sexual orientation is a prohibited ground of discrimination.
June 17, 1991

The petitioners note that the Canadian Human Rights Commission has called for this and that three provinces and one territory have put such protection into their Human Rights Acts.
They therefore call on the federal government to follow through with the promise made in 1986.


Mr. Lyle Kristiansen (Kootenay West-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present a petition on behalf of a number of petitioners from throughout the province of British Columbia and in the city of Toronto.
The petitioners express their belief regarding the Unitel application that full consultation among all parties affected by any changes in the long distance local service relationship must take place prior to any action.
Further, the CRTC hearings on the Unitel bid must be integrated with the development of an over-all Canadian telecommunications policy. In pursuit of that, they urge the Minister of Communications to oppose Unitel's bid and further urge the minister to consult with all affected parties, specifically those citizens living outside Canada's urban areas who will be impacted severely by any deregulation and imposition of higher tolls on rural Canadians.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of quite a number of petitioners from almost every province and territory who are asking Parliament to take action to bring forward immediately an amendment to add sexual orientation to the Canadian Human Rights Act as a prohibited ground of discrimination.
They mention that the House of Commons mandated the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in 1985 to prepare a report on equality rights. This was supported in 1986 but the government has not yet acted.
The Canadian Human Rights Commission has consistently called for such an amendment and recently stated that government inaction called into question the commitment made four years ago.
We call on the government to honour its commitment in this regard.
Routine Proceedings CANADIAN FLAG


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition signed by numerous residents of the riding of Kingston and the Islands. They call upon Parliament to pass a bill to make it an offence to desecrate or otherwise destroy the flag of Canada.


An hon. member:: How many is "numerous"?


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: The parliamentary secretary has asked me how many is "numerous". If he would give me answers to the questions I have put on the Order Paper, I would be pleased to answer his. I will be pleased to tell him that in this case it is something over 60 signatures.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Madam Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present petitions calling upon this House to include the right to freedom from discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in the Canada Human Rights Act.
I would point out that the subcommittee on equality rights of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs supported a report supporting this; that there are provinces and territories such as Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba and Yukon that have such protection; and that it is time now for this House to take a stand and ensure that sexual orientation is in the Canada Human Rights Code.
I also have the duty and honour to present a petition from my constituents in Yukon. Whereas the government has refused to extend to public sector workers the full rights to collective bargaining and the federal government wants to contract out jobs rather than use the skills of the public sector workers, these petitioners call upon Parliament to protect the collective bargaining rights of public sector workers and reject the imposition of wage controls and the further contracting out of jobs from the public sector.



THE ENVIRONMENT


Jean J. Charest: Madam Speaker, after consultations with the member for Shefford and the other parties, I would like to repeat the motion that I put to the House a few minutes ago with one change. I would like to suggest that the motion be seconded by the member for Prince Edward-Hastings of the Liberal Party who I understand from conver-

Government Orders
sations I have had with the member for LaSalle-Emard has a special interest in this issue.
I would be more than happy to suggest that the member second this motion. Of course it is also seconded by the member for Skeena. Unless otherwise spoken, the member for Shefford also gives his consent to this motion.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: May I repeat that we agree with the minister on this matter.


James Ross Fulton: I would also like to thank the minister, the member who just spoke and my friend from Shefford.


Mr. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have great concern about passing motions when they deal with the entirety of this country and rural parts when we talk of an over-all approach of 12 per cent.
I just hope there is going to be a great deal of caution to ensure that where the 12 per cent is going to take place, it will not jeopardize those regions of the country that develop and need the jobs in order to survive.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I do understand that despite this piece of advice the hon. member is still giving his consent.
The House has heard the motion presented by the hon. minister. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, if Question No. 7 could be made an Order for Return, the return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: is it the pleasure of the House that Question No. 7 be deemed to have been made an Order for Return.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



EDUCATION

Mr. Duhamel: For each fiscal year since 1987-88, (a) what is the total of all cash funding allocated by the government for educational purposes (primary, secondary, post-secondary, (b) what is the breakdown by program (c) what is the description of each program?
Return tabled.


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


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, since I was so fast to answer the question put to me by the parliamentary secretary a moment ago-I gave the answer within 10 seconds-I wonder if he would tell the House when he can provide an answer to the question I put on the Order Paper on February 13, over four months ago. It would be most appreciated if he could prevail on his colleagues to get an answer to that question, particularly when the House is going to adjourn at the end of this week for a long summer recess.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I think my hon. friend needs to take a lesson from this. I put to him a very clear and concise question which he was able to answer immediately and therefore he understands the difficulties we are having with his at the moment.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall all remaining questions
stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-20, an act to amend certain statutes to implement the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 1991, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and on the motion of Mr. Sobeski (p. 1799).
Mr. Dingwall:: Madam Speaker, I wish to inform the House that after my colleague from Parkdale-High Park completes his intervention, we will be moving in accordance with the Standing Orders to split our time, 10 minutes and 5 minutes of questions and answers.
While I am on my feet I am wondering if I might direct a question to the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader with regard to future business of the
June 17, 1991

House for today, particularly the business which will follow after the consummation of the vote at six o'clock this evening. Does he intend to proceed with a continuation of Bill C-20, or does he wish to debate the provisions of the Draconian bill, better known as Bill C-ll?


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I want to indicate to the House and to my hon. friend that yes, indeed, if it is necessary to continue debate on Bill C-20 after the vote this evening, we would intend to do just that.
Should Bill C-20 collapse prior to ten o'clock, or should people not be rising to enter the debate prior to ten o'clock, we would be more than happy to carry on with what we hope would be a speedy debate on Bill C-ll.


Jesse Philip Flis: Madam Speaker, when I was on my feet prior to Question Period I was debating Bill C-20 whose title reads: "Budget Implementation Act, 1991, Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act." It would be more appropriate if it were entitled: "The Destruction of Canada Act", another one of the government's bills which is destroying the very fabric of this country.
I have the honour and the pleasure of representing Parkdale-High Park, which is representative of our beautiful country. In this riding I have the more fortunate Canadians who live in homes with swimming pools, three cars in the driveway, ravine lots, you name it. I also have the less fortunate Canadians who are paying most of their income for rent and have very little money left for clothing and food. Some of these people, to make ends meet from month to month, do have to line up in food banks to get additional food for the children. I then have all of the other constituents on that spectrum.
Whoever created us or got us on this earth built into the life span of everyone an equalizer. That equalizer is death. Unfortunately, prior to death many of us do require some kind of medicare or hospital care. I think in everyone's opinion, that kind of care and that service should be equal to everyone.
Before Question Period we heard from a Conservative minister from Quebec, stating that he does not care if an
Government Orders
ambulance drives a patient from Quebec to Vancouver, that is the province's choice. Well, when my constituents have to be driven one mile to the hospital by ambulance,
I want that ambulance service to be there. I do not want it reduced or cut because this government is reducing its transfer payments.
My constituents have a fairly good health care service. In the west end of Toronto we have the Runnymede Hospital chronic care which looks after people well into their 80s, 90s and 100 years. I have the honour of going in and celebrating people's 100th birthdays thanks to the care they are getting in this hospital.
I have the Queen Elizabeth Hospital in my riding which provides first-class care for the handicapped who are able to lead their lives in a very dignified and respectful way.
Last Friday I had the honour of going to my riding to help open the Frank O'Leary Health Clinic for citizens 55 years and over, a community health centre where people can drop in in a relaxed manner. Not in the riding but serving Parkdale, we also have the Parkdale Community Health Centre, a drop-in centre. Centres such as these help take the pressure off the emergency wards of health centres and hospitals and that is as it should be.
Last Sunday I participated in a fund raising event in High Park to help raise funds for St. Joseph's Health Centre in my riding. What pleased me was that people came from Parkdale, High Park, Baby Point and there was no distinction between rich and poor. There was no distinction between the people who have the swimming pools and the people who can barely make ends meet month to month. They were all out there as a family helping to raise funds for St. Joseph's Health Centre because the federal government is cutting further and further and, as a result, the provinces are giving less and less to the health centres and to the hospitals.
St. Joseph's Health Centre has a community health case clinic. It has a community mental health clinic. There is an emergency ward. There is a family life program. There is a family medicine centre. There is a pre-natal screening program. There is the women's health centre. There is also our Lady of Mercy chronic

June 17, 1991
Government Orders
health care where I spend every July 1 helping these shut-ins celebrate Canada Day.
That is why I say that the constituents in my riding are fairly well looked after, but they are getting very concerned because they already see cutbacks as a result of reduced transfer payments.
I mentioned the shut-ins because sometimes we forget about them on Canada Day and since we are leading up to Canada Day weekend. On this weekend I visit the hospitals, the senior citizen homes and I visit all of the people who cannot come out to the parks or the streets for celebrations. So I go to their bedside and I present them with a Canadian flag and I wish them a happy Canada Day.
Hopefully, our health services will be such that these people will be able to celebrate more and more Canada Days with us.
With your permission, Madam Speaker, I would like to wish all the shut-ins across this country from coast to coast to coast a happy Canada Day, especially those who will not be able to get out on July 1 weekend.
In the government's obsession to reduce the deficit, it has threatened our entire way of life. By reasoning that if it spends less and less money, it will be able to take what is saved and apply it to the deficit, this government has ground our economy to a halt.
Imagine a situation where the Minister of Finance would say to the Prime Minister: "Mr. Prime Minister, when you fly to Hong Kong, instead of chartering a plane for $100,000, could you please wait two hours and fly on a regular flight?" One hundred thousand real dollars would have been saved.
This is real money which could be applied to the debt, but it is not hospital money, nor education money. Bill C-20 is not going to save money, not real money. By reducing the amount of money transferred to the provinces for post-secondary education, tuition will go up.
When tuition goes up, the chances of the average person getting an education, a job and paying their own way goes way down. This government is putting into motion a cycle of poverty and lack of education which terrifies me.
Before coming to this House, I spent 28 years in education, as a teacher, vice-principal, principal, supervising principal and as co-ordinator of special education of students with handicaps. I worked with adolescents, in psychiatric treatment facilities, in hospitals and so on, so I know just how important it is to get an education.
Education is not a luxury. It is a necessity. Money spent ensuring Canadians get a post-secondary education is the best possible investment we can make for the future of this country.
The federal government has a duty to take the money it collects from taxpayers and invest it wisely. Investing in equality of opportunity, the opportunity to get an education and the opportunity to get medical care, is a good investment.
I urge this government to reconsider this bill. I urge the minister to take a good look down the road. I am a little disappointed that so few Conservative members are taking part in this debate, but I think they know if they stand up to defend this bill they will lose the next election. They know it and that is why they are sitting quiet on their hands, refusing to debate this damaging bill.
Projections to the year 2000 show $100 billion in federal support will be taken out of the provincial medicare and education systems. As the flow of federal cash is taken out, the federal influence over both areas is reduced. When that day comes universal medicare will be dead. Access to education will be beyond the reach of all but a few.
If changes must be made, they must be as a result of federal-provincial negotiations. They must not be imposed unilaterally by the federal government with no thought of the consequences for the provinces and the people I described earlier. Minimum standards must be maintained in all provinces and territories, and only the federal government can ensure that that is done.
If the government backs away from the leading role it has played for so many years, in the beginning it will be at the expense of the poorest people in the poorest regions. It will not take long, however, for all regions to begin to suffer and for all Canadians to feel the consequences.
This is not my Canada. My country is one of equality of opportunity where every person has the same basic rights. There is time to change. There is time to get off
June 17, 1991

this destructive path and get back to being a country with one of the highest standards of living in the world.
There is still time to preserve our post-secondary education and medicare systems, and I urge the minister to listen to Canadians and do the right thing: withdraw Bill C-20.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with pleasure today to participate in debate on this bill. I realize the previous speaker, the member for Parkdale- High Park, questioned why there were so few Tories getting up to speak in defence of this bill. There is one Tory standing right here who has absolutely no trouble defending this bill, and I am in fact proud to do so. Not only am I proud to do so this year. I was here last year when Bill C-69 was put through the House, a bill that further restrained spending a year ago, and I do not have any hesitation in standing up and supporting government restraint.
For too long in this country, for too long in this city, for too long in this Parliament when Liberals were in office, no member of the Liberal Party stood up and said to the government: "Restrain your spending, cut it back, stop it from increasing, don't spend it here, don't spent it there". In fact, one particular case comes to mind to show the foolishness of Liberal governments of the past. Where were the members opposite? Why didn't they stand up and speak?
There was a trucking company that went out of business because it was bankrupt, potentially bankrupt, and what did the Liberals believe? The Liberals believed that if this small trucking company was allowed to fold nothing would move between Toronto and Montreal because there would be no way of transporting the goods between the two cities. In total absence of any comments from the members opposite while they were in government, the Government of Canada gave $29 million to a trucking company only to see it go bankrupt anyway. It is that kind of nonsense that preceded us and causes us now to bring forward this particular bill, which of course is a further restraint on spending that we had last year.
What is all in this bill and in just what direction is it going? Before I get to that I would like to talk about some of the things we did last year. There are some very serious steps we took last year which we are continuing this year. Certainly one of the things we did in last year's
Government Orders
budget, which I think was a very positive step, was the tax back provision of various government programs to high income Canadians, whether they be family allowance or Old Age Security recipients.
Another thing that does not get an awful lot of press nowadays, because I guess it is something the opposition does not want to give us credit for, is the special tax we placed on large corporations. Various large financial institutions and banks cannot use the tax system to avoid paying a minimum amount of income tax. This was in last year's particular bill that I am mentioning.
Of course, the other thing we did was to stop or slow down the growth in transfers to the provinces. I find that a very positive move.
I sat here today during Question Period, an hour ago, and listened to members of the opposition talk about what I perceived to be their restraint on spending, their thoughts on this year's budget and where they would be going if they had their way.
There were demands that the government increase funding to the Canada Assistance Plan, open-ended funding, versus restraint to three provinces, one of which I happen to be a member of Parliament for. Yet opposition members say: "give them all the money in the world, all they ask for". That was one of their questions.
Another question rather facetiously asked was about why we were spending $126 million over the next four years on violence to women? Why didn't we bring it forward and spend it over two years so that we would have it all spent by the time the next election rolled along?
Of course, the reason we did not do that is because we do not spend money based on next election programs. The other fact of course is that if we did they would be saying: "the only reason you are spending it over two years is because there is an election coming and you are trying to get it in in advance of the election". That is not the way we operate.
They also demanded more money for housing. Even though we have substantially increased funding over the six years devoted to social housing, there they were demanding more money for housing. They were complaining about the defence spending cuts that we are presently undertaking in Europe. They were looking for

June 17, 1991
Government Orders
more funding for Indian bands even though we have substantially increased funding for Indian bands over the last number of years. Of course they were objecting to the restraint on wages we put on the Public Service. Then they asked for unlimited funding for health care programs. It was attitudes like that, Madam Speaker, that if their spending patterns had carried on from 1984, we would now have a $96 billion or $98 billion deficit instead of the one we have.
That is the attitude that Liberals and NDPers bring to debate. It is amazing that after six years of looking at the serious financial problem we have, there has been no change in their outlook. Their cure to all of the problems of this country is simply to spend money. Well, I am one who is proud to stand in this House and say I do not agree with that cure; in fact, some of the cure might be better achieved if we didn't spend quite so much money.
What have we done? In the February 26 budget we asked we asked many Canadians to share further in the fiscal restraint that the government started on.
We know, and I certainly hear it from many of my constituents, that there are already Canadians who have made some very important sacrifices in the name of restraint. We also know that there will be a reluctance on the part of many of those to accept further requests for If we took no steps to deal with this worsening debt and fiscal situation that we have in Canada, the deficit would be much higher than forecast over the next five years. In fact, it would be so much higher that an additional $215 billion would be added to the public debt-$215 billion that my constituents cannot afford, $215 billion that the children and future children of my constituents cannot afford, and I would hazard to say that is the case for all Canadians.
What have we got? We have come up with a bill that does some very specific things. I can use some words which I think probably reflect what we are trying to do here, words of Mr. McKenna in a speech that he gave back on February 21 of this year. I would like to quote from an article in The Globe and Mail of February 28. It says: "Each government would be required to produce a
four-year balanced budget. No leader could buy popularity today with the dollars of tomorrow. The leaders of the sixties and seventies have placed a first mortgage on the future of Canada. The leaders of the eighties and nineties are placing a second mortgage on the same asset. There is no equity left. We must once and for all put an end to the suffocating debt load we are placing on the backs of our children."
I like what Mr. McKenna had to say and I think that this particular bill goes in the right direction, to stop today's government and future governments from simply spending money for the sake of it.
What is in this particular bill that has the opposition so terribly concerned? Certainly one of the things is restraint on federal transfers to the provinces, and yes, they are being restrained. I find it interesting that here in the province of Ontario that with our new provincial government is spending money like drunken sailors. I would like to share with you just what the Government of Canada is proposing for the health care system and the various other things.
When the Government of Ontario brought down its budget a couple of months back, it indicated that the reason it had a $9.8 billion deficit was because the Government of Canada was reducing its payments to the province by some $3.4 billion. That is rather far from the truth, Madam Speaker. What has basically happened is that over the last she years, since 1984, the Government of Canada has increased the transfers to the province of Ontario by some $3.2 billion, which on an annualized basis meant that the increases were running at about 7.5 per cent per year, year over year increase.
The province of Ontario is saying: "Well, yes, but you should have given us more. If you take their number, we should have given them, according to this, twice as much". Can you imagine trying to justify to my constituents why we are increasing the transfers to my province at the rate of 15 per cent a year? When we are living with a 5 per cent inflationary environment, my constituents would certainly not accept us increasing transfers and thereby allowing other governments to increase their spending at a rate of 15 per cent a year.

Now, if they don't agree with the fact that it should have been done over the last six years and say it should have been done all in the last year, you have to understand that what the province of Ontario is suggesting is that the Government of Canada should increase its transfers to the province this year by some 45 per cent. I do not know in whose mind 45 per cent would be an acceptable number.


An hon. member:: The socialists.


René John Soetens: I guess the socialists might. Unfortunately for us, we have a socialist government in Ontario. But fortunately for Canada we have a Conservative government in Ottawa because they are not getting 45 per cent more from us this year or any year while I am here, I hope, so that it is very clear.
What have we done this year? We are increasing transfers to the province of Ontario, contrary to all that rhetoric that comes from Queen's Park and from some of the opposition seats. We are increasing transfers to the province this year by about 2 per cent.


An hon. member:: How much?


René John Soetens: About $220 million, not some small sum. That is a rather significant sum. When in fact we in Ottawa are holding our spending quite successfully, we see no reason why other provinces and other levels of government should not do the same.
I stand here to say that in this particular bill that is in front of us, we are restricting the rate of increase in our transfers to the province. However, I say quite clearly that I support that restriction without any hesitation. Canadians across this country are calling on all governments to improve efficiency, to tighten up the rules under which government money is spent, and I think this is exactly what we are doing with this bill.
Now, some will argue on the opposite side-I heard it on Friday, I heard it today-that because of this restriction in the transfers that we are giving to the provinces, the federal government will lose its clout; that it will lose its ability to enforce the Canada Health Act, to enforce the rules and regulations under which the services will be delivered because there is no money that it can use, shall
Government Orders
we say, in a sense to attach penalties to provinces if it is not transferring any money to them.
Of course you know that the second part of this bill very clearly deals with some revisions which give the Government of Canada power to attach financial penalties to transfers other than those that would be attached to health care transfers, so that we could use any sort of financial transfer that we have to a province to in fact penalize the province if it set out to restrict the government's ability to have proper services provided by the various funds that we are transferring.
There is another item that is in here which personally I might suggest does not go far enough, particularly when it deals with MPs. We can maybe discuss it in the context of the wages that MPs and senators are going to receive.
As you are aware, the Government of Canada has announced-and this bill goes further to implement it-that members of Parliament salaries will be fixed too. As you are aware, there are already two bases under which this is fixed. One is 1 per cent less than the consumer price index, and the other I believe is 1 per cent less than the industrial average wage in Canada. Now there is going to be a third restriction, and that basically will say that MPs cannot receive more of an increase than we grant to the civil service.
As you are aware, based on some of the news reports that are going on right now, the civil service is negotiating a salary increase but the government has said that for this year there is no additional money. It appears that they will get 0 per cent this year, 3 per cent next year and 3 per cent the year after that. So this bill basically says that MPs and senators will receive that amount of money or less if the Consumer Price Index is lower.
I think you will find that Canadians have been calling on members of Parliament and senators to participate in this restraint measure, and you can see very clearly by this particular item in the legislation that we are doing that.
I might suggest that there are some Canadians who would support the idea of looking at the tax-free portion of the allowance that members of Parliament and all politicians across this country receive. That might be an interesting subject for a private member's bill.

Government Orders
I would suggest that clearly members of Parliament and senators are participating in the restraint that we have been asking the rest of the civil service here in Ottawa and across Canada to participate in.
Having said that, I do have some concern about the civil service salaries. Yes, they are being restrained, and they have been restrained for the past four or five years. If I listen to many of the federal civil servants who live in my riding-and I have had a chance, particularly this weekend, to talk to a number of them-I can sympathize with their point. They are being asked in a period of 4 and 5 per cent inflation to accept a 0 per cent increase this year, when for example last year they got less than the provincial civil service, or in fact probably less than the civil service in my municipalities. There are a lot of civil servants who are saying: "For the last four or five years, we federal civil servants have been asked to bite the bullet much more severely than any other level of civil service". From my observation that is correct. I wish we had more money to give them. They probably work harder or work as efficiently as any civil servants, but the fact of the matter is we do not have any money. There is a choice in the matter, and that is to be laid off so that we have money to give more to those other civil servants who still have jobs.
I am not sure that is necessarily the appropriate step. I do not think we should simply be slashing staff for the sake of slashing staff. I do not think we should be slashing staff so that we can say to other staff: "Well, we got you a salary increase". What we are saying in this circumstance-and it is a very appropriate circumstance-is that the federal government has a problem: "We all have to tighten our belts. Your contribution to this will be an absolute restraint on your wage increase'1. I support that, even though I understand how difficult it may be for many of those people who are caught by that.
Further in this bill there are a number of other items that are affected. The Public Utilities Income Tax Transfer Act is being affected. There are many public utilities across Canada that would pay income tax and that tax is transferred to the provinces. What we are doing with this particular piece of legislation is capping the transfer of that tax to the provinces. Principally, it is Ontario and Alberta that pay the bill on this.
It is coincidental that in Alberta they passed a piece of legislation that in fact stopped that transfer from going all the way through to the municipalities. They certainly agree with the gist of what we are proposing with this kind of legislation. They have implemented steps that are much more severe than that which we are proposing.
Also in this particular bill are changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. When the present Government of Canada came to office in 1984, the Unemployment Insurance Act was operating with a tremendous deficit in that we were paying out substantially more in the way of benefits to the unemployed than we were collecting in the way of premiums from those who were employed.
It is an insurance scheme and the Government of Canada said: "Just a minute, if you are going to have this kind of a scheme, and if you are going to have this kind of a plan, it certainly has to be self-financing". Over the last number of years we implemented a program to make the unemployment insurance fund totally self-financing. As you are aware, now the Unemployment Insurance Act has again become non-self-funding. Of course as many members of the opposition would echo, unfortunately it is not paying its way because there are many unemployed people now who are unable to make their contribution.
What we are doing with this particular bill is increasing the premiums being paid by the worker from $2.25 per $100 of insurable earnings to $2.80. On the part of the employer we are increasing it from $3.15 to $3.92. The intent of that is to make the plan self-funding. It will not all be done in the immediate step, but over a period of about a year it should make it self-funding.
What does that do? It stops it from going into a deficit. It stops future contributors to the unemployment insurance fund from having to pay interest on the debt that the unemployment insurance fund has. That kind of step is appropriate because, unfortunately, if previous Liberal governments had not spent their way out of office, we would not have the problem today of trying to raise all kinds of money simply to pay interest. On the unemployment insurance fund, we are saying that we are not going to allow a debt to be accumulated, and therefore future contributors will not have to tiy to earn first the interest to pay that fund before we carry on any further.
June 17, 1991

Those are some of the highlights of what is in the legislation and they are certainly very positive steps.
Just so that it is understood that there is some light at the end of the tunnel, I thought I would quote from an article from The Ottawa Citizen, which appeared on June 13, a column written by Marjorie Nichols.
I would like to read a couple of paragraphs from her column. The first paragraph reads:
The budgetary deficit numbers actually distort the fiscal truth. In
fiscal 1984-85, the Liberal budget deficit was $38.3 billion, of which
$16 billion went to pay for "groceries"- federal programs and
salaries.
In fiscal 1991-92, by contrast, the Conservative deficit will be
$30.5 billion, all of which is interest charges on the national debt.
Members would be happy to know that at least 85 per cent of that interest is on debt which was there when they were in office.
So I hope I have shared some important aspects of this particular bill. I am proud to stand here and say that I support this bill in spite of all the catcalls from the other side.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, I wanted to zero in on a couple of particular comments that the member had to make. He talked quite eloquently about how the Public Service now has to bear no wage increase and yummy, yummy, we as members of Parliament earn substantially more than the $19,000 a year which a large number of women in the Public Service earn as well as those who are out on the high seas performing rescue operations at great danger to their lives. Those tens of thousands who earn less than $19,000 are going to be frozen in exactly the same way as members of Parliament who earn close to $100,000 per year.
I am wondering why the member who has just spoken thinks that is fair. I am also wondering why he thinks it is fair that senior managers in the Public Service earning upwards of $100,000 get bonus and increases equivalent to the increase in the CPI but people earning less than $20,000 get no increase this year. I
I cannot help wondering why he wants to tie the increases of members of Parliament to the increases of
Government Orders
public servants, rather than having a special wage restraint package for those who are earning substantially more than the 68,000 public servants who are earning less than the poverty level income in this country.
Does he really think it is fair that 68,000 people, whose income is already below the poverty level, should earn less next year? Does he think the price of bread is going to go down? He might, at the same time, want to comment on the fact that he did refer to the federal Public Service receiving wage increases substantially below the rate of inflation for five years now and substantially below other workers in the public sector.
What he forgot to mention was the fact that those wage increases are even below increases in the private sector and that increases in the private sector in many communities are up this year and are pushing the price of goods and services up this year. Both people who will get no increases live in exactly the same communities and pay exactly the same prices as those who are getting substantial increases in the private sector.
Would he care to comment on any of those points?


René John Soetens: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to try to cover some of the points that were raised.
I did not hear the member say that she would support this bill because it had restraint of MPs salaries. It would be interesting to see whether she will rise in this House and say she supports at least that portion of the bill, because I have not heard anybody opposite really get to that point.
She talked about all these high income senior management people in the Public Service. I did not hear her mention that in the budget we had announced that 10 per cent of them were going to be losing their jobs. She also talked about the wage increases. I did mention that the people in the federal Public Service have received less money than their counterparts in the provincial Public Service. I find that unfortunate and very difficult, but because other governments in Canada, particularly in Ontario, choose to spend money faster than I think appropriate does not mean necessarily that we should follow the same patter.


Marlene Catterall: Well how about the private sector?

June 17, 1991
Government Orders


René John Soetens: Having said that, if a province in Canada were in a serious fiscal straitjacket, as the federal government was in, I am sure it would find that all of its Public Service would also be capped.
Of course, finally she yells out: "Well, how about the private sector?" I might point out that in the private sector those companies that do well give their employees increased pay. Those companies that are in the process of going broke or not making any money either lay off their employees, freeze their salaries, or even cut their salaries.
In our situation there are no employees faced with the imminent loss of jobs because our company, the Government of Canada, is closing. We have not forced job sharing on any of our employees, as is happening in the private sector. We have not cut anybody's wages in the federal civil service, as is happening in the private sector, and we certainly have not closed any doors, which is happening in the private sector.
So when the member opposite yells out: "Well, how about the private sector?" I thought I would point out that there are some factors concerning the private sector which she ignored in her presentation.


Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Madam Speaker, it gives me dubious pleasure to speak to Bill C-20. Ten or 20 minutes is not near enough time to denigrate the actions or the policies of this government.
I am going to, from time to time, quote from Premier Bob Rae's speech in Halifax because I know my colleagues in the Liberal caucus from northern Ontario are very interested in what Premier Rae has to say. I know the members opposite, and even the Japanese, are very interested in Premier Rae.
I want to quote from his speech in Halifax because I think it was a great inspirational speech for, not only New Democrats, but for Canadians had they heard it, so I want to be sure to cite several quotes from Premier Rae. He said: "Let's build something together. Let's build something positive together instead of this absolutely futile cut and cut, cut and slash, cut and withdraw and cut and then express surprise that the country seems
ill at ease. Why the hell wouldn't it be ill at ease with that kind of leadership and that kind of approach".
The present Minister of Finance says: "We are staying the course. We set a course in 1984 and we are staying that course".
What a circuitous course that has been, especially since 1988. It is difficult to stay a course when at first you practice to deceive. There is a sudden rebirth or change on behalf of the government. We need only look at 1988 when the course was very, very different from the present course of this government.
I take a look at the Tory-I will not call them promises because they certainly were not promises, I am not sure what they were. The Tories were talking about $12 to $16 billion that they would be able to spend across this country. All of this money was within the budget. It was already in the estimates. It was taken care of.
Some of those promises included: "Free trade will mean lower prices for Canadian consumers, better jobs and greater opportunities". The Prime Minister said in Prince Edward Island, as late as October 1988, that: "In the future Canada will be doing more, not less, for all of you. As long as I am Prime Minister social benefits, especially those for the elderly, will be improved, not diminished by our government which is committed to social justice and fairness for Canadians." We know that turned out not to be true.
He then said: "We will continue to pursue policies to make equality of opportunity a reality for all Canadians by expanding the training and skills, upgrading programs of the Canadian Jobs Strategy". That was in 1988. In 1991 we cut $100 million from the Canadian Jobs Strategy.
He continued: "Social programs will be strengthened. We will have more millions of dollars to fight illiteracy and combat drug abuse. We are prepared to subject every federal undertaking and every undertaking on federal lands to a full environmental impact study". Another promise certainly broken.
The issue here is not broken promises, but the suggestion that this is a course that we are staying.
The course has changed very dramatically since November 1988. There is a new course being followed by this government, which suddenly has been converted by
June 17, 1991

Reverend Ike, James Baker or whomever. The government has said: "This is the course on which we are going to stay now. It is all about deficits".
We say in Ontario, and federally, that there are two ways of dealing with a recession. I can talk about the anatomy of my own constituency. The Ontario government says: "We would rather fight than switch. We do not want this Operation Desert Storm with the province of Ontario, the country of Canada or the constituency of Sault Ste. Marie".
Transfer payments have been cut. They have been capped at the worst possible time, and I cite statistics from one of the hospitals in my community. The provincial government has given a 6 per cent increase across the board to hospitals. It is conceivable that they could receive as much as 11 per cent depending on the services. Yet, the hospitals tell us: "That is not enough".
Inflation is 6.4 per cent in hospital services. As a result, even with this increase by the provincial government, there are still beds being cut in the hospitals in my community. I am sure there are cuts across this country in hospitals.
We say: "We cannot increase the transfer payments to the provinces". The province of Ontario has tried, and even with that attempt, there are still dramatic cuts in the medical system of this country.
This government is not transferring payments. It is transferring responsibility, and there is the major difference. It is squeezing what it can out of the provincial government, which has no recourse. All the other governments in this country have chosen to swim with the stream as opposed to swimming against the current.
It is the only government with the fortitude to swim against the tide and attempt to help people when they most desperately need it. That is now in the midst of a recession.
We talk about UI and the increased payments for employees and employers. The suggestion is that this is a safety net. When you most need the UI system, as my community did in a 16-week labour dispute, just try to get what you think is rightfully yours from the UI system. Even when you think you have won a settlement or an appeal or even when you have won a Federal Court ruling there is a possibility that this government will take
Government Orders
you to court over a ruling, that it will go to the Supreme Court of Canada to ensure that you will not get UI.
It was the audacity of this government to add insult to injury in the midst of a strike or labour dispute when the workers received vacation pay which they so desperately needed. The government continued to say: "We are going to continue to take UI premiums from your vacation pay even though you cannot collect UI". This was ironic at worst and tragic at best.
The UI system is fraught with inconsistencies. It is nigh on impossible to extract old moneys from the very upper levels. I have no quarrels at all with local UI offices. However, the higher you go the more difficult it is to extract any funds that workers, after having worked for 25 or 26 years and never having collected a red cent from a system they thought was there to protect them, thought they deserved to get.
This process of appeal goes on and on. Six and eight months later we are still proceeding with appeals.
There are communities at stake and quite naturally I speak for my own. This government says we have to cut the deficit, and that is good. We have to cut expenditures, and that is good. We have to cut transfer payments, and that is good. We have to cut eligibility for UI, and that is good. We have to cut VIA Rail, and that is good too. We are cutting inflation, and that is good too. We have to wrestle inflation to the ground. We have to maintain a high Canadian dollar, beyond the belief of everybody, including the allies of the government.
Nobody believes this high dollar policy is sensible or practical or makes any sense economically, fiscally, or any way. It is literally draining the lifeblood of the manufacturing base of this country. The Algoma Steel Corporation in my community talks about if the dollar was lowered we would have a chance. We would have a chance to sell some steel in the U.S. markets. But in the very next breath they say that even with a lower Canadian dollar the free trade agreement precludes us from selling steel into the United States.
The present penetration of U.S. steel into Canada is now about 15 or 17 per cent. That is five times what it was before the free trade agreement. A lower Canadian dollar would help, but it is not the sole solution to a major problem.

June 17, 1991
Government Orders
Cut all of these things. Cut the deficit, cut expenditures, cut transfer payments, cut eligibility, cut VIA Rail, cut inflation. But is it good when you cut a community off at its knees, bring a country to its knees? Does it profit a government to do all of these things if, in the end, there is nothing left to cut? There is no industry, there are fewer businesses, there are fewer employed, there is less tax to be collected. Even if the government's policy was sound, we are doomed to destruction. Everything is great, all of these things are wonderful, but if there is nothing at the end of it, what good have you done? You have wreaked economic disaster upon the country.
When the final cut is in, and that is all this has been, everything that comes forward is a litany of cut, cut and cut, and very little has escaped the swath of the cut.
So what then? What about a year from now if its policies have worked, and there is nothing. There is a vacuum in many constituencies, not only Sault Ste. Marie. It may have won a battle over inflation, but it has won a war over the people of many communities in this country.
If I could digress for just a moment to mention the GST. The revenue minister says Canadians are overtaxed. The finance minister said no, they are not overtaxed. Many of the backbenchers on the government side say yes, they are overtaxed. The revenue-neutral GST collected $400 million more than anticipated in the first three months of 1991. Canadians say: "Thank God it is a recession. The amount would have been doubled if there were good times". There is some suggestion by many members from the government that we are over-taxed. Well, give everybody a break. What better time than in a time of recession? Give them a break. Say: "We are going to cut this down to 5 per cent, and we can still get ahead with our preoccupation with deficit reduction". You could cut it to 5 per cent and make some people happy. Be positive. That's all Canadians are looking for. A little bit of positive initiative from this government.
It may denigrate what the Ontario government has done, and it suggests, before the budget, when are the New Democrats going to come forward with their promises? They are not carrying through with any of those promises. So when they brought forward the budget and
came through with some of the promises and some of the spending, it said they are spending too much. Well, you can't have it both ways.
What does the government want? Does it want the promises or does it not want the promises?
My community is very, very thankful and grateful for the initiatives that have come forward from the Ontario government. Twenty-five million dollars has come into our community and they are happy. And the only people who are unhappy in Toronto are the folks on Bay Street who finally got an opportunity to demonstrate, and we are happy for them. They got out of their offices, where they have been cooped up for all those years, and said: "We are going to demonstrate". And it was great to see them.
And how about "Fax Floyd"? "We are going to fax Floyd and tell him we don't like the budget". Well, I think the Treasurer of Ontario had a great answer, he is more concerned about the people who don't have fax machines.
So we are happy that some people are upset. And just this past weekend I read where some of the folks who don't like the budget have rented an office in downtown Toronto, no doubt a very expensive office, and said: " We are going to stay here and fight that Ontario budget until the New Democrats are gone". Again, that points out the illegitimacy of what these people are saying. Certainly the poor people of this province couldn't rent a room in downtown Toronto and try to turf out this government, because they couldn't afford it. They would have to meet in somebody's basement somewhere, which is probably better, at any rate.
Of course, I had mentioned when the Prime Minister went to Japan that he got into a cab and the first thing the cab driver said in Tokyo was: "What about that Ontario budget? Isn't that terrible!" He didn't mention anything about the federal budget but he was preoccupied with Bob Rae's provincial budget. Surprise, surprise. It seems that everybody is preoccupied but I am not so sure the people of the province are that preoccupied. I know the people in my constituency are not that concerned. And if they were concerned I am sure they would be calling my office, as they do with many other complaints, but one of them has not been the Ontario budget or the deficit.
June 17, 1991

It has created work in the community and in the province. We appreciate, we really do appreciate, that the deficit is a problem. But we cannot fight that deficit right now, we cannot afford cuts in transfer payments. When hospital beds are being closed, cut out of hospitals, when there are layoffs, fairly substantial layoffs in education, despite the increase of transfers from the province to the municipalities, one just cannot afford it, it is impossible. Because, as the finance minister said, there is only one taxpayer. And if the federal government continues to squeeze at the federal level, it comes out at the other end, if we want to try to maintain services. There is only so far you can go with a cut-and-run mentality.
I suggest that Canadians are willing to pay their share, even more than their fair share, when the time is right. The time is not right at present. This kind of budget is the wrong budget at the wrong time. We have a couple of choices; cut and run, as this government is doing and taking away federal presence across the country.
I had the privilege the other night of speaking to the At and East, a topic about which I knew very, very little, until I stayed here for three or four hours and listened to other speakers and found out the illegitimacy, the illogical reasoning behind it, that it would cut out $35 million in subsidy and preclude $40 million in revenue.
Somebody just made the decision and said: "Well, we have to cut somewhere. Let us take a look at this At and East, it has been round since 1966. There is a good one to cut".
So the choice is, cut and run, or stay and fight. I think this government has cut and run and has removed federal presences across this country. The Ontario New Democratic Party has chosen a different path and I believe it is the appropriate path.


Peter L. McCreath: Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. friend for Sault Ste. Marie. I must say he leaves me somewhat bewildered by some of his remarks.
Before I raise a couple of questions-and I will be brief-I just want to correct something he said. He quoted the Minister of National Revenue as saying that Canadians are overtaxed or taxed too much. Perhaps he
Government Orders
was not in the House when the minister corrected the record.
The remarks the minister made were with respect to the gasoline tax. He felt that Canadians were over-taxed or "taxed to the limit", I believe is what he actually said. He did not say that in general. He made it perfectly clear in the House. If my hon. friend was not here to have the record set straight, I do it for his benefit now.
I could comment on so many things that my hon. friend said. I think he had the same speech writer as the hon. member for Surrey North earlier. They should be jointly put up for the Governor General's award for fiction for some of the things they had to say.
One of the two questions I specifically want to ask him has to do with the Canadian Jobs Strategy. He laments the cut in this budget of $100 million related to the Canadian Jobs Strategy. I recall over a year ago touring this country with some of his colleagues on the C-21 committee when time and again, day after day as we went from city to city, I heard them say that the Canadian Jobs Strategy was a waste of money. They said that the training provided was a waste of time and energy and it did not contribute to people at all. Now that there is a 3 per cent cut in the budget, all of a sudden it seems that the views of the NDP on this have changed. I wish he would explain the apparent contradiction.
The second thing has to do with the business of taking things to court. If I understood my hon. friend correctly, he is lamenting the fact that the government sees fit to use the courts to set things right. I believe his own party has initiated actions in the courts against actions of this government with which they disagreed. Is he suggesting that it is only proper to use the courts if the action is against the government, or would he want to suggest that all Canadians have the right to see that justice is done and that indeed the legislation is carried out as it is supposed to be?


Steve Butland: Madam Speaker, as far as the Minister of National Revenue is concerned, I think he is on record as having clarified his statements day after day after day. I know when he was concerned about the traffic over Samia-Port Huron, he said: "Well, if there is too much traffic on the bridge, let us build another bridge", which dismayed just about everybody, especially the senior staff with him. I am not surprised that the minister would say something that was quoted verbatim and then the next day spend a great deal of time trying to clarify it.

June 17, 1991
Government Orders
The member does not cite any particular members with respect to the Canadian Jobs Strategy. Although he is a very honourable man, perhaps he might misquote some of my colleagues in those committee hearings that were held across the country.
I suggest that if training moneys are strategically spent, they can be well spent. I can understand that they can be misplaced. I have seen that situation in my own riding. It is very difficult because I have not had a hands-on approach to that situation until very, very recently. It is very difficult to have the federal and the Ontario government to complement job training programs. I think that is an extremely important initiative.
The one that really upsets me that the member talked about is the court system. Out of context what he suggested-and I am only talking about a very narrow focus to my concern-was the Federal Court had suggested that the workers had won at an appeal stage, a referee stage. They won it at an umpire board. They won at the federal court fair and square. Everybody said: "These workers deserve UI payments". And the government said: "Well, we do not care about all of those rulings. We still want to ensure that you do not get it, that we are not convinced that this is appropriate".
I do not have the time to give the background of it, but it was absolutely appalling. What they wanted to do was to divide 4,000 steelworkers into 2,000 that would get benefits and another 2,000 that would not. This effectively pitted one group of workers against another one, partner versus partner, colleague versus colleague, coworker versus co-worker. It was an abomination of a system.
Let me finish the story, Madam Speaker, because eventually we won the case. We harassed and cajoled the federal government: "Look, this is something you have to do". And it told me: "Okay, we will pay the workers, but you cannot tell anybody. If you make an announcement, we are going to take it back". The very audacity of saying: "Okay, we will pay you, but let us pay it out quietly, okay? We do not want the news to spread because maybe a worker in another riding might hear about it and he might want it too". I said: "No deal. We are announcing it and, if you want to pull it back, that is your business". They did not.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Madam Speaker, I note the hon. member in his very capable
speech spared us the usual rhetoric that we get from members of his party. In that respect I want to congratulate him. I think it was a most worth-while contribution to the debate, and in large measure we can agree with what he said and his criticisms of the government's policies.
I particularly want to indicate agreement with his criticism of the cuts that the government has instituted and the lack of any imaginative method of dealing with the problem of the federal deficit which the government has created through its own inactivity over the last seven years. I know that he would agree with me that had the government shown a bit of initiative early in its mandate, it would not find itself in the position that it is in today where it is having to meet interest payments in excess of $30 billion a year.
Having said that, I know that the hon. member shares my concern that a very large national debt is the thing that has put the government in its present position where it has to make these staggering interest payments. He knows as I do that the Government of Ontario, which I know he supports, has recently announced a program that is going to put the province of Ontario in precisely the same position in another four years. I believe the recent budget announced in Ontario, which had no new programs in it, increased the deficit to such an extent and proposes to keep it increased to such an extent over the next four years that it will in that time double the provincial debt.
Does he not agree that the disastrous policies pursued by the Conservative government for the last seven years are exactly the same policies now being pursued by the socialist government in Ontario? Does he not think he should be critical of that government for pursuing such shortsighted and really silly policies?


Steve Butland: I thank the member for his positive comments. No doubt his questioning was facetious because I know that there is not rhetoric spouted at all to the left of the member.
The Liberals both provincially and federally have no reason to comment whatsoever. At least I give them their due. We know members opposite know what course they have, at least for these couple of years, but we are never quite sure what is the position of the party which the member so capably represents.
June 17, 1991

You compare New Democrats with this government's fiscal policy. Where were you? You created this mess. You are the authors of this mess, and these people are merely continuing what you initiated.


An hon. member:: A double standard.


Steve Butland: Again I go back to the policy of the Ontario government. We started off with a $3 billion deficit, and just to keep the status quo, we had to get up to a deficit of $9 billion. And you are criticizing us for that. You are saying that is terrible. So on one hand you say that is terrible, and yet on the other hand you are saying there is nothing new about it, that we should have created some new, positive initiatives. Well God forbid if we had gone to $11 billion or $12 billion. What would you have said then?
The Liberals always want it both ways. They say they do not like it this way and they do not like it that way. We know what you like, let us go down the middle, that is what you like.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: 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 Winnipeg North Center-Aboriginal Affairs; the hon. member for Edmonton South-East-Passes for convicted persons; the hon. member for Eglington-Lawrence-Taxation; the hon. member for Halifax-Port of Halifax; and the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley-The Environment.
Resuming debate. I recognize the hon. member for Ottawa West.


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, the debate today reminds me of an occasion a couple of weeks ago when I was out speaking to a group of people who had immigrated to Canada in the last six or seven years. They were from all over the world. They were from Iran, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cambodia, Vietnam, and they were telling me they were having a hard time understanding why we have a government that keeps destroying things instead of building
Government Orders
things. That certainly is the most appropriate way of describing this bill. Fiscally, socially and culturally, this bill continues the program of destroying much of what is good about this country, much of what we are proud of about Canada, much of what makes us the envy of the world.
I am reminded as well of Lucy and the football. You know, we see the cartoon every fall in Peanuts where Lucy holds the football. Charlie Brown is supposed to kick it. She promises him every year that she is not going to pull the football away. He is not going to fall flat on his face or his back. And every year he falls for it and every year she pulls the football away. It seems to me that is the kind of promises we have had out of this government for the last seven years. It seems to me that with every budget we have had more intense rhetoric about the deficit and the debt, while the deficit and the debt continue mounting, despite relatively prosperous economic times for the last half dozen years.
In every budget, every throne speech, we have promises about getting rid of the deficit and debt. We all have to handle a little bit of pain so that that can happen, and in the end things are going to be better for our children.
Madam Speaker, it never seems to happen. The deficit does not seem to go down and the debt keeps going up. And yet we still have to handle a little bit more pain, a few more cuts, to the point where we are losing some extremely valuable programs in this country. We are also losing our ability to be strong and competitive in the coming decade and in the coming century, and to be a prosperous, healthy, fairly egalitarian and just society.
Canadians have said very clearly that what they want is strong national programs, national standards across Canada from sea to sea to sea, because after all, that is what this country was built on. Let us have a nation from sea to sea to sea, where people enjoy common standards, common benefits, equality regardless of where they live in the country and where they are socioeconomically.
We have to ask the question: with all this pain is the government saving money? No, it is not, it is just transferring government spending to other levels of government. I have sat at the other end of that spectrum. I have sat at a municipal council. It is happening all over the country right now where the pain and the hurt of your people becomes evident. So even if the senior levels

Government Orders
of government are cutting back on health care and social services, deinstitutionalizing to save money, it is the community which ultimately ends up with people sleeping in the streets and sleeping in garages overnight. The community ends up providing the food banks, the emergency shelters and the extra little bit of money to help people make it through to the end of the month without starving. So we do not save money, we simply transfer it to a level of government that is least able in fact to carry out these programs.
Cuts in transfer payments and federal revenue sharing are changing a structure of the country, changing a structure of the Canadian federation through the back door. More of the spending obligations are being transferred to provinces and municipalities where the ability to pay for programs is less than it is at the federal level. The national ability to set standards and criteria is being diminished entirely.
Medicare payments, social service payments and the ability of local communities and provinces to deliver child care are being cut because the government is not meeting its contract. It is not meeting its obligation to share those costs and all we are doing is hurting the poorest, the most disadvantaged and the poorest regions of our country. We are not hurting governments, we are not hurting politicians, we are not hurting bureaucrats. It is people who are being hurt; it is the one million children living in poverty in this country, the same children who, when they are poor, suffer twice as many deaths from accidents, traffic accidents, homicides and suicides as do children of wealthier families. These are also children who drop out of school at four times the rate.
This bill before us, cutting the federal government's share of our social obligations across Canada, is going to make those statistics desperately worse. Children are going to be poorer, women are going to be poorer and people with disabilities are going to be poorer. The poorest parts of our country are going to be poorer because they are the ones that can least afford to provide the services that people need.
We talk about medicare. Americans are up here looking at our medicare system. I heard one speaking on television just last week saying: "We are up here to find out what you are doing because you are able to deliver
medical services to all your people better than we are and cheaper than we are." They are paying far more for medical services in the United States and there are 30 million Americans who have no medical coverage whatsoever.
Unemployment insurance. Well, we are told we have to bear some of these difficulties because we are fighting inflation. Then what the heck is the government doing increasing the unemployment insurance rates by over one-third since the beginning of last year, if it wants to fight inflation? Why is it telling the same people who are being told they are not going to get any salary increase this year that they will have to pay $204 more if they are earning approximately between $35,000 and $40,000. They will be paying $204 a year more for unemployment insurance. They will not get an increase in their salary but they will be expected to pay more to the government for unemployment insurance.
This is entirely contrary to promises made by the Minister of Finance when he said that the government will continue to contribute to the financing of the program in difficult economic times. Well if this is not difficult economic times I do not know what is.
We had 1988 election promises that benefits would go up and premiums would come down and exactly the opposite has happened.
An earlier speaker this afternoon said that none of us in this House had addressed the question of restraint on member of Parliament salaries. I do not think there is one of us who does not agree that if there is restraint we should start with restraint on ourselves. But that is not what the government has done. Those people it has appointed to very highly paid positions, sometimes over $500,000, are still getting their increases while women and other people earning under $20,000, and most earning under $20,000 happen to be women, are getting no increase from this government this year.
In this bill, the government very carefully did not make its own salaries subject to the wage freeze this year, the freeze that it is imposing on the other quarter of a million people who work for the people of Canada. It will come in next year when it is talking about a 3 per cent increase, not this year when it is talking about a wage freeze.

The government veiy nicely protected itself from the same restraint it is imposing on everybody else.
I want to close with one thought. Perhaps what the government should think about is getting people back to work. What would happen if those 1.5 million people who are unemployed were not drawing unemployment insurance or social services in their local communities but were working and paying taxes. What would even a 1 per cent drop in the unemployment rate do for our deficit in this country?
Instead of restraining spending like this, destroying medicare, destroying unemployment insurance, destroying our social programs, what this government should be doing is concentrating on getting people back to work and contributing financially to the debt and the deficit reduction.
Perhaps then we would see some solutions to our problems instead of continually exacerbating and expanding problems for the majority of Canadians, such as the continuing growth of disparity between those who are rich and those who are poor to the point where some who have will be able to get good medical care and some who have not, will not.
This is a disastrous bill that touches all those things that link and hold this country together in a sense of common purpose. It is a disaster for Canada, and the results will be in effect long after this Parliament is not.


Peter L. McCreath: Madam Speaker, I listened with care to my hon. friend's remarks even though I was outside for part of the time.
It seems to me there is a fundamental difference in the philosophy on that side of the House and that on this side of the House. The philosophy over there is that creating work and creating jobs are the same thing. You put as many people as you can on the government payroll, and then you let the circle of expenditure go along.
Unfortunately, what that philosophy did for this country was get us in the financial mess that we are trying to clean up on this side of the House. When that government over there left office, it was spending $16 billion a year more than it was taking in, notwithstanding the national debt and the interest on the national debt.
This government, along with most Canadians, believes
Government Orders
that unfortunately you have to pay your bills. If the government of the previous party in power had had that philosophy, perhaps we would not be in the situation we are in. The opposition talks about gutting medicare. It talks about cuts, cuts and cuts. Guess why it is there. It is there because we have $43 billion of interest to pay annually on the national debt.
Thirty six cents of every dollar collected by the Government of Canada goes on interest charges. If we do not get a handle on that, where will that leave us in the future? If spending had continued under this government as it had under the last government, which left a $38 billion deficit, today the deficit in this country would be $99 billion.
What programs would we be able to support with that amount of money? Indeed, would we have the authority to run the country? Would the International Monetary Fund have come in and taken over?
Does my hon. friend not think it is an important thing for governments to act in a financially and fiscally responsible manner? Does she think it is okay to endlessly allow deficits to grow and mortgage the future of our kids with debt charges and a national debt that could never be brought under control?


Marlene Catterall: Madam Speaker, I certainly do. That is why I condemn this bill and this government for its fiscal policies which will deliberately put 12 million people in this country out of work this year.
Is having people unemployed any way to bring down a debt and a deficit? The government has done everything. The member opposite has exactly outlined why we charge this government with fiscal irresponsibility. He stands there and admits that 36 cents out of every dollar is going to pay interest on the debt and then wants this country and this House to believe that this government is responsibly managing the finances of the country of Canada.
At least eight years ago when there was a deficit it was to provide programs for Canadians. It was to keep people working. It was not just to pay interest on a debt which the Conservatives have allowed to more than double since they came into office over seven years ago.

June 17, 1991
Government Orders
We do not build the strength of this country and our ability to be economically strong by diminishing the health of Canadians, by diminishing the opportunity of children to have a good education so that they can prosper and contribute to this society in the long term. We do not do that by letting children go hungry, by letting people go homeless and by letting people have health care only when they can afford to pay for it.
The member opposite has obviously forgotten that there was a time in this country when people had to decide whether they could afford to take their child to a doctor, whether they could afford to have an operation that was needed to save their lives. Those were the days before medicare. Those are the days I remember when I was a child and those are not days that I want to see in this country for my grandchildren.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, before the fat cat from South Shore made his phony intervention my colleague from Ottawa West was completing in a very thoughtful manner her analysis of this bill which reads: an act to amend certain statutes to implement the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 1991.
Behind these harmless looking words there is some very dangerous substance that ought to be put forward and explained to the Canadian people.
This bill, I submit to you, reveals the real cruel agenda of the Progressive Conservative Party with respect to its long-term intentions in this country and, in particular, with its intention on medicare and post-secondary education.
To make it worse, it has the ability through the budget speech of last February to couch its language in a small l liberal manner so as to make it appear actually what it is not, to make it appear as something liberal and progressive. However, when given the chance to analyze this bill more closely, one can see that it hides something profoundly regressive and something that no backbencher of the Progressive Conservative Party would dare to defend on the hustings at the next election.
It is so well put that it has to be put on record once again what the well-known Canadian writer, Gratton Gray, wrote in Policy Option very recently when he spoke of this government's social policy by stealth. He said:
The social policy by stealth relies heavily on technical
amendments to taxes and transfers that are as difficult to explain as
they are to understand and thus largely escape media scrutiny and public attention. It camouflages regressive changes in the rhetoric of equity in an attempt to convince Canadians that tax increases are tax cuts and that benefit cuts are benefit increases. By further complicating an already complex labyrinth of taxes and social programs, the stealth style of policy-making confuses the electorate and so insulates itself from criticism. The Conservatives record on social and tax policy constitutes a variation of Newton's third law of motion. For every positive action there is an equal and opposite negative change. As a result the goal of a fairer, simpler and more rational system of taxes and transfers remains as distant as ever.
It could not have been put better in describing the bill before us, Bill C-20.
Who is hit by the measures proposed in this bill? Who will suffer under it? Obviously, it will be the people who are least able to defend themselves, those working at minimum wages, the family led by one parent, those who are on low fixed incomes, all the people whose well-being depends on the capacity of having access to adequate health care. They may not be affected today, nor perhaps next year as the charts would reveal, but just give it a little time, two, three, four, five years from now. What kind of Canada will emerge as a result of these measures when they are fully implemented downstream?
It will be a patchwork of Canadian health and post-secondary educational services whereby the provinces which can afford it perhaps will be able to maintain certain standards and others will gradually fall behind.
Who will benefit, as the member for Ottawa West has pointed out so well? Those who will benefit will be the fat cats in our society, the rich people who will be able to insulate themselves from the impact of this measure. In other words, it is a classical example of Progressive Conservative policies put into place and disguised behind fancy language, using actually Liberal language. That is what is so annoying about this particular approach.
I would like to draw the following to your attention. Between now and the year 2000 as a result of this bill, $97.6 billion in federal support will be vanishing, putting a squeeze on both medicare and post-secondary education. This is almost $100 billion. To be more specific, the forecasts that have been carried out show that the last federal cash payment for medicare and post-secondary education, when it will still be available in certain have-not provinces in the year 2008, will be $238,000 to the Yukon. In the following year not one cent of federal cash would go to any province or territory.

In the case of Quebec, the cash payment will disappear by the fiscal year 1996-1997. Madam Speaker, you may want to remember that on the hustings during the next election campaign.
Cash payments to the province of Ontario will be gone by the fiscal year 2002-2003.
As for the rest of the provinces and territories, they will lose all federal cash for medicare and for post-secondary education a few years after Ontario. That is the picture that emerges when this measure will be in place a few years downstream.
Therefore, the question is to imagine how Ottawa could maintain its legislative presence with the five principles of medicare once federal funds for medicare have dried out. What will happen is that Canada will become a hodge-podge of provincial and territorial programs with different medicare systems, and everybody unto himself.
The changes proposed in this bill have the potential to undermine the full range of federal transfer payment programs. To this point I have dealt with post-secondary education and medicare.
The federal government, as a result of this bill, if and when it wants, will be able to withhold transfer payments from equalization payments to territorial financing, to grants in lieu of taxes, to public utilities income tax transfers, to statutory subsidies, to the Canada Assistance Plan, to crop insurance; to payments in education with respect to official languages, to miscellaneous health and welfare programs, to young offenders services, to justice and to transportation.
It is impossible, even in the limited time available, not to make reference to the fact that in the budget speech the Minister of Finance announced that he was soaking employers and employees by an amount of an additional $2 billion by way of increased premiums, this at a time when unemployment is in the area of one and a half million. In that budget document we were not able to find one reference to measures to relieve unemployment, to deal with unemployment, to establish policies to create jobs. Would you not expect, at a time when one and a half million people in Canada are unemployed,
Government Orders
that the budget speech would address the situation of the unemployed, that it would attempt to kick-start the economy in the badly hit regions so as to provide relief?
That is not what has happened. Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, you are indicating to me that my time is over. I will therefore have to restrain myself from indicating how the Government of Canada is squandering taxpayers' money with its ill-conceived defence policies, particularly by insisting on maintaining its troops' presence in Europe at the present time. That will be for another occasion.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: As we will be resuming debate now, I would like to advise the House that the first 12 hours are now completed so all speeches are to be 10-minutes with no period of questions and answers. Resuming debate.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, with the limited time before us now I would like to restrict my remarks to just one area of the legislation that is before this House today. By restricting the area on which I wish to speak I do not mean to minimize the other important aspects of the legislation, mainly as it affects the amendments to the Parliament of Canada Act, or to minimize the effects or my interest in the changes as they affect the role of unemployment insurance, that will be taking effect if and when this act passes.
Those changes will greatly affect the amount that small businesses in this country will be forced to pay to support the unemployment insurance plan and also the tremendous increase-I think it is approximately 24 per cent-that every employee who is lucky enough to have a job in Canada today will be forced to pay in order to supplement the unemployment insurance fund. That fund was, up until this period of time in the history of Canada, the responsibility of the government. It is a responsibility which the other side of the House has chosen to ignore. It has placed the burden of the responsibility for insuring wages in this country squarely on the back of every employer and every small businessman in the country when they can least afford to pay for those increases.

June 17, 1991
Government Orders
I would like to address another very critical issue that this legislation is bringing forward and how it affects the national health program in Canada.
We are all involved today with the constitutional debate and the unity debate. We all know that section 92 of the Constitution Act gives the responsibility for the delivery of health care to each province in this country. As in education and in other areas, the responsibility for health and the delivery of a system of health care within Canada is strictly on the provinces. Through transfer payments in this House, we take federal tax money and give it to the provinces. As a result of giving these funds to each province in this country, we can then set conditions on the availability of those funds. As a result we in effect have usurped the responsibility for the delivery of health care in Canada from the provinces and because of the restrictions we place on the transfer payments, we have taken over responsibility, but not complete responsibility.
If a province chooses not to accept those funds, as we saw a few years ago, then it can carry on with its own delivery of health care. With this method of transfer payments we could very well establish within this country several types of health care delivery systems. This is contrary to the very essence of what we in Canada have come to understand and accept as a universal plan for medical care for every Canadian who lives in Canada.
I am amazed, as I listen to this debate, that we have not yet addressed one of the key problems that will be created as we diminish and lessen the amount of transfer payments to each province. The people who built this country are going to be affected. I would like to speak about how it is going to affect the senior citizens of our country.
There are some of us in this House who are gradually approaching that age when we will become senior citizens. I do not refer to you, Madam Speaker. I refer to some of my colleagues who circle around us.
I want to talk about how it will affect seniors. What right has this government or any government-whether it is this government in power today or any future government, which I assume very much will be a Liberal government, or any provincial government in this country-to interfere with the fundamental right of all
citizens? It is a right that has not been given but one that every citizen in this country through their dedication-some who have come to this country by choice and some who have worked in excess of 40 years-has earned. It is not a privilege. It is an inalienable right of every citizen in this country to expect a universal health delivery system that is not subject to any restriction.
Let me rephrase that. It is the inalienable right of every citizen in Canada to be able to accept and expect a universal health care system that is not subject to any restrictions whatsoever. I think it is the responsibility of a federal government to ensure that this federal system of health delivery maintains that important aspect.
Now the people who are put in jeopardy, as my friend from Toronto just said, are the people who can least afford to pay for that service, the poor of the country. I want to talk about, in my remarks today, the elderly, the senior citizens of this country. We should not even be discussing the fact that in the future, they may be responsible for the payment of what is called a "user fee" to pay for the costs of health care within this country.
In 1988 and 1989, there was $23.9 billion spent in Canada by the provincial governments for health care. Tax transfer-and that is a subject for debate today and the subject that this government is trying to cap-was $6.6 billion, federal cash outlays were $8.2 billion, municipal spending was $0.6 billion, and private spending was $14.8 billion. That all totals up to the tremendous amount of $54.1 billion spent on the delivery of health care in this country. I think the federal government has a responsibility to ensure that this money is not only spent wisely, but spent frugally, with care for the responsibility of every citizen in this country.
I get very upset when I hear that money in health care is being wasted-and I think about the $500,000 that just recently went to some United States agency for one individual. The federal government should show leadership in health care, especially for our senior citizens. It should ensure that funding for a health care program in this country be spent with some wisdom. It should ensure that within this country of 10 provinces and two territories Canadians are not subjected to a user fee or hospital fee and that money that is collected is spent for the best interest of every Canadian.
June 17, 1991


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: I thank you for the opportunity of making those remarks on behalf of the senior citizens in Canada. I am sure they will look very seriously at what this government has done at the next federal election. They were promised that their benefits would not be touched and we had the clawback. They were assured by this government that the medicare would not be touched and now we have this bill before this legislature. So on their behalf I speak today, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Madam Speaker, as did my Liberal colleague, I want to limit myself in my participation in this debate to a specific area, and that has to do with transfers to the provinces. I will not concern myself with the changes that are going to affect medicare or general social programs through cuts in Established Programs Financing, as well as the Canada Assistance Plan. I would like to make a few observations on the issue of Established Programs financing as it affects post-secondary education.
I am sure you will recall that when this government first came into office our concern at that time was that the provinces were not delivering their fair share of funding to the universities as compared to what the federal government was doing. At that time they were arguing that we should have assured levels of financing for the universities, that there should be a guarantee of provincial participation and that some effort at negotiations should be entered into in order to bring that about.
The issue has become dramatically more important, as others are beginning to recognize. Almost everybody now is beginning to recognize that the real creation of wealth comes from the mind, from creativity and from innovation. In that context there are two significant components to economic development as all recognize now; education and training on the one hand, and science and technology on the other.
We are at a stage where it is perfectly clear that we must enhance our national literacy, our national education and our national training in order to bring about the
Government Orders
kind of economic development that will put Canada into the 21st century.
Unfortunately, as we look at what has been happening since, we cannot be encouraged. At this stage of the game we observe that the changes in the funding mechanisms that were brought about in 1977 with the Established Programs Financing let loose the provinces from their responsibilities of paying a fair share, then estimated at 50 per cent for post-secondary education. The Liberal government at the time not only changed that formulation releasing the provinces from their obligation, but as a result of changes which were described as the six and five per cent change and other changes brought about by the Liberal government, some $5.7 billion was not delivered to the post-secondary system. Even when this government came into office, the university system was feeling the pressures already from under-funding.
What has happened since? In 1986 this government passed Bill C-96. This was the first attack by the Conservatives after vigorous attacks by the Liberals which set the escalator of the Established Programs Financing at the change in the Gross National Product, minus 2 per cent. That cost the system a considerable bundle of funds, but to make matters worse, in 1985 Bill C-69 was passed. This bill increased the deduction from the rise in the Gross National Product that would be delivered to Established Programs Financing so that we would have the change in the GNP minus 3 per cent. Not only that but with Bill C-69 the Established Programs Financing was frozen for two years. Now we have Bill C-20 which escalates the attack on the university system. Bill C-20 freezes the Established Programs Financing for another three years.
The effect of this is $13.8 billion in accumulated loss which has been brought about by legislation and budgetary action by this government at a time when almost everybody says that education is of immense importance. The government in the throne speech described a number of educational goals, not the least of which was to double the number of graduates in science and engineering. It said it was going to increase by four-fold the number of workers who were trained. It said it was

Government Orders
going to abolish illiteracy. It said it was going to increase the number of graduates from high school.
The government uttered all these platitudes about how important education was and the Prime Minister said he was going to make eveiy effort to make it possible for eveiy young person in this country to have the educational weapons necessary for economic survival.
Yet time after time after time since his government has been in office, just as did the government before, it has cut its commitment to post-secondary education. This in spite of the fact that people have become convinced of the importance of education, including post-secondary education, to the extent that 93 per cent of Canadians agree that the federal government should maintain and not cut its role in the financing of post-secondary institutions.
Two-thirds of those polled supported increased funding for post-secondary education. Yet this government persists in substituting words for actions and causing severe damage to the system.
All one has to do is look at Memorial University. It is cutting programs and cutting staff. You can look at the University of Calgary and the University of Alberta where they are cutting staff and programs. You can look at Mount Royal College in Alberta. My God, because of the increased costs of tuition and living, there is a food bank for students. All over the country libraries are deteriorating and students are lacking access to the system. A special program for access to engineering at the University of Manitoba is going to be cut because of under-funding. Ihitions are being increased by 10 per cent, 15 per cent, 20 per cent per year to the extent that students are now constantly paying out increasing proportions of the cost of post-secondary education while the contribution of this federal government decreases steadily.
This is supposed to be a government that understands the importance of knowledge to our future economic growth. This is a government in which a member can stand up and say: "Oh my God, I talked to some young people and told them they are going to have a $15,000 debt which they are going to have to pay when they grow up because of the actions of their parents." What the member did not say last week was that those young people to whom he was talking are unlikely to be able to
afford that $15,000 because there will be no jobs. It means that the deficit is going to increase.
The deficit increases for a number of reasons, but not the least of the reasons is the failure for adequate economic growth. If you do not have people who are earning an income and you have to pay social costs, then you are going to have an increasing deficit because you are not going to have the revenue from the wage earners or the corporations. After all, in this modem, economic context, the Canadian situation is such that if we do not change things pretty quickly, the deficit is going to grow and grow because nobody is making any income or many profits to pay those taxes.
The reason for this is that this government has not understood that you have to do something to control the deficit, but you had better mobilize the resources, the human capabilities and the opportunities that people need for learning in order to make the economy grow so that you can eliminate that deficit.
Bill C-20, as with so many actions of this government, takes the wrong path. If this government continues in power we are doomed to more and more words while more and more damage is done to a post-secondary system which will be unable to meet the challenge because this government has failed not only that system, but our people and certainly our children.


Mr. Hockin:: Questions or comments, Madam Speaker?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: No. The first five hours have elapsed. We are now on debate.


Sheila Finestone: Madam Speaker, I guess the minister has forgotten about the Draconian, undemocratic process you have instituted in this House which does not even allow us to talk at any great length about the serious issues that face this nation. We just all have to talk in very superficial terms.
While it is a privilege to rise in this House and talk on behalf of my constituents of Mount Royal and on behalf of a lot of people across this land, I do so today with a great deal of concern and regret for a government action which is so regressive and found in this Bill C-20, a bill to implement the 1991 budget. It is a bill which is trying to remove this government from its area of traditional jurisdiction and traditional responsibility and, in particular, increasing the pressure on our already strained
June 17, 1991

higher education, health situation and health education and programs under unemployment insurance.
Certainly, I meant to include the medicare system of our country. It is doing so by limiting provincial transfers until 1995-96. This is a very tricky, hidden way to to impose a social structure that is totally against the Canadian way of life. The debate goes to the very heart of what this government is doing wrong as it undermines the fundamental social contract of this land. It abandons our goal for a much more just society in the name of the deficit, which is important.
The choice of action this government has taken ignores the principles of the Canadian approach of pursuing the twin pillars of economic opportunity and social justice that have always been the hallmarks of Canada and the Canadian way of life.
The Canada that has been so renowned around the world is being struck. This is why Americans are now studying our health care system, which is far less costly than theirs and serves all our people, while their system does not even serve 37 million of their total population. Yet this government seems bent on demolishing this fundamental fact of Canadian life.
We see every day in the streets of my Mount Royal riding, in the community centres, in the food banks, the images of hunger, the images of great social needs going unmet, of middle and upper income executives who no longer have a job, whose self image has been destroyed, whose sense of self-worth has gone down the tubes because of this government's unenlightened approach of dealing with this deficit. Yet, this government goes merrily along and introduces bills and takes steps like today's saying: "We cannot do any more. Our hands are tied. The deficit is far too important. We would love to help, we just cannot afford it". I say the question has now become: "We just cannot afford not to help". This government does not understand that it takes economic measures as well to make the deficit shrink.
Noel Alexander, the president of the Jamaica Association in my riding, brought to my attention that 67 per cent of the unemployed Jamaicans in Montreal are young people between the ages of 18 and 25, a figure that disturbs me no end.
Government Orders
Thousands of jobs have been lost in my riding since the free trade agreement was signed with the United States, in textiles, in clothing, and in food processing. The high dollar and the high interest rates have closed many, many more plants. This government goes right ahead at this time of great recession without any care. It has destabilized this whole population.
It has introduced a goods and services tax. The Department of Finance now tells us the Minister of Finance did not have a clue as to what he was doing. He has indicated that the GST has collected in the last fiscal quarter $400 million more revenue than was estimated. That is $400 million on a base of $1.8 billion, which this government has collected. That is 25 per cent more money than was anticipated out of the pockets of Canadians. No wonder they are having problems. No wonder they are going to cross-border shopping. No wonder they have no money to buy food and have the normal lifestyle we expect as Canadians.
All during this time, new Canadians have been coming into our riding, new Canadians have been coming in across this country, notwithstanding the fact that there are long waiting lists, and Al-Mashat got in first. Like any other people, they want desperately to work and earn their fair share of the Canadian dream. However, the recession has erased the few jobs that were left and the students entering the summer job market are in a very sad way. The government has cut over 15 per cent of the funding in my own riding that was to help people find summer jobs.
Look at what is going to happen to tuition fees, taxes on books, all kinds of costs that are inherent in having an educated population.
The story of poverty in my riding I am sure would shock many members of this House but it is repeated right across this country. There are literally thousands and thousands of people living below the poverty line, either the working poor or those on social assistance; thousands and thousands of people, I would add, who have no sign of hope from this government: single mothers who number in the thousands, seniors who rely on sponsored in-home health care or just plain meals because their needs exceed their means.
Food banks are serving many more people than they used to serve in Montreal, in my riding and across this country. Children are increasingly having to go to school

Government Orders
hungry and rely on food programs at school for meals. No, this is not the 1930s.
The message today is that this government is so set on using the back door approach of technical bills like this that rarely set off alarm bells or newspaper headlines to severely undermine the kinds of social policy principles from health care to education that have always been the cornerstone of this country's social contract.
That is really what concerns us, that is why we will not be supporting this bill and that is why the government should not be cutting the debate short. The population out there can start putting some pressure on those dinosaurs across the way so we can get some things done.
We are talking about a federal government that is making these very Draconian cuts, but worse it is making them now in a very familiar, sneaky, smoke and mirrors, hidden way. As my friend from Winnipeg North Centre, who made an outstanding speech in this House, said: "The language is there that makes it look good. The language of fairness, the language of concern and the language of good management. The government knows the language".
It knows it so well after seven years of practice but it is too bad it does not start to live up to the language that it uses. The substance is just not there. The real programs and the real dollars are not behind the words.
Canadians should know what this government is doing. We are debating here very dry, very unexciting, very technical changes. It makes closer inspection of government's rosery rhetoric all the more important.
I could give all kinds of figures which would blow our minds. They would certainly upset the population just as much as Bill C-69 did. In that case the government also did not allow enough conversation or enough exchange.
Here we are seeking to undermine the Canada Assistance Plan, extending the capping on day care, on matching funds, on disability payment and on welfare payments. This is actually an attack on poverty. That is what we have out there. We are undermining equalization programs, our medicare system and our post-secondary educational system. Add to that the increase in unemployment insurance payments for employers and employees and the government not accepting its part of the responsibility.
This government is moving out of its traditional domain. It is doing the wrong thing at the wrong time,
particularly at this very sensitive time with the constitutional uncertainty that is going on out there.
As we travelled across this world in our duties to learn about other countries and to exchange what can be done as the world becomes a little village, the question I am constantly being asked is: "What is wrong with you out there? You are destroying yourselves. You are destroying this country that millions and millions of people want to come to. You are structurally changing this country, fiscally, socially and culturally. You are destroying it. You are destroying the dream of millions of people".
I was in Hong Kong at the refugee camps that the Prime Minister so glibly talked about. There are tens of thousands of people in those camps who are anxious to get into Canada. They are sleeping in a bed that is the size of a queen size bed stacked three rows high. Yet, here we are tearing down everything that these people want to come to.
What is the matter with this government? It needs its goals re-examined. It needs to understand this country. I would like to take government members and dump them in central and eastern Europe, in Asia and India. They might come home, count their blessings and kiss the soil which this land is all about.
Bill C-20 is cutting provincial transfer payments on health and education. It is taking $338 million of federal money from health and education programs in 1992 and 1993 and a massive $2.3 billion out of our hospitals, medical clinics and post-secondary institutions over the next five years.
Anyone who has a brain, who has gone out there and opened their eyes knows that the country has two weights, if they look at the demographic studies. We are bringing in immigrants because our people are not repopulating this society. As a result we have a youth bulge coming up. At the top we have an aged bulge. The aged need health care delivered from the home, all kinds of housing needs and all kinds of support needs. What are we doing? Cutting back hospital care.
I would say that the tax increases this government is trying to tell us are tax cuts, what it is trying to dump on the provinces, are totally unacceptable. It has used the back door, squeezing the provincial coffers and, as I said, it is trying to sell us on the fact that tax increases are tax cuts and that the benefit cuts are benefit increases. It tries to confuse the population and insulate itself from the criticism that it justly deserves.
June 17, 1991

Government Orders
We are saying: "Look". We are saying to the media: "Start talking about what is going on out there, get the population up and angry, and let these people know what is going on. The programs it is cutting are totally unacceptable".
I will finish in one minute. I would just like to end up by saying that we are asking the government to protect medicare, to protect the ability of those with little means to attend to their education. Don't add to the line-ups waiting at hospitals, don't make people have to travel to look after their health, don't penalize the disabled or victims of violent crime. That is part of what is in this bill, if one really reads it carefully. It is totally unacceptable.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member knows that it is not with my permission but with everybody's permission. I am just trying to adhere to the rules as they are.


Mr. Douglas Young (Acadie-Bathurst):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak in this debate, although the subject is a painful one. To those of us who listen to Canadians, it is clear the question is not just what will happen as a result of the legislation introduced by the government, it is a matter of attitude, and for the vast majority of Canadians, a matter for concern.
I spent the weekend in my riding, and people asked me whether unemployment insurance funds would be able to respond to the needs of a society that in certain regions of our country is experiencing unemployment rates of more than 30 per cent. Who can guarantee this, Madam Speaker, now that the government has decided employers and employees will have to pay the bill?
When we visit the elderly, they, like those of us who are getting on in years, say they want a health care system like the one we have had for decades in this country. It is very hard to answer these questions, Madam Speaker, because if it only depended on government financing, the ability of the Government of Canada to pay the bills, perhaps we could say: Well, even if times are hard across the country, there is a serious commitment on the part of this government to ensure that in the future, every effort will be made to provide the same security Canadians have known for the last thirty, forty or even fifty years.

When people ask whether the Canada Pension Plan is going bankrupt, whether or not unemployment insurance is going to remain as a fundamental protection for Canadian men and women in the work place, when people discuss what they see happening in a number of provinces with nurses and doctors, with hospital administrators concerned about the future of medicare, it is very difficult for a member of Parliament or anyone who is sensitive to these issues to be very reassuring.
I wonder if at some point as we progress in the consideration of legislation, not just this particular piece of legislation but other legislation that is being brought forward by the government, if we could have a new statement on the intent of the government. What is its ideology?
Many people in this country voted for the government on an early issue in the 1984 election of jobs, jobs, jobs. Now we are faced with the loss of jobs, jobs, jobs. In 1988 many people voted for this government because they were convinced that, as the government put it, its people were the best managers, it had the people who could best deal with the very, very onerous task of trying to govern this country, to find sufficient funds to maintain fundamental programs and to maintain some balance between debt and income.
Deficits are not at an all-time high; they are staying at $30 billion. Our debt is at $400 billion.
I believe Canadian people have a right now to hear from the government as to what is its vision of this country in the 21st century with respect to an aging population. What assurances is the government prepared to give now similar to what Canadians were told to expect in 1988, that some of the social programs were sacred trusts?
Very few people in Canada remain naive about the problems of trying to finance the operations of federal, provincial and municipal governments. That being said, if this government is to continue on its program of changing very dramatically what Canada is all about and how Canadians can feel secure in their country, not just in terms of the Constitution but in terms of their health, loss of employment and their retirement, there is something dramatically the matter.

June 17, 1991
Government Orders
We have heard about competitiveness. We are talking about changes in the economic system and our trading partnerships with Canada and the United States. We know what is happening in Europe. We recognize the emerging giants coming out of Asia. There is a great deal of effort being put forward by the government in convincing Canadians that we can no longer afford the kinds of programs we used to have and that people felt secure about in terms of unemployment insurance, medicare and the Canada Pension Plan. If that is the case, then I believe it is incumbent upon this government to demonstrate its courage and its conviction that it does have a plan to deal with these kinds of programs moving into the 21st century.
I would like to issue a plea today on behalf of Canadians that the government come forward and tell Canadians what they can expect. For many years it was gospel in this country that if one was sick one received medical services. If one was out of a job, one received unemployment insurance. If one grew old one was not only eligible for the old age pension per se but also, for those who had participated in the work force, the Canada Pension Plan. Those were tenets, principles of Canadian life and part of what makes us different from most other nations in the world.
Surely all of us in this place have a responsibility to tell Canadians where we are going and what kind of a Canada we are going to have for the sick, the elderly and people who have made their contribution to our society.

Madam Speaker, the time has come to review the Unemployment Insurance Program, for instance. The government and the ministers responsible for introducing legislation on unemployment insurance last year gave Canadians, including workers, the assurance that substantial programs would be provided for training and retraining.
With the advent of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, we were promised adjustment programs, and if those programs had been in place, there would certainly be a very substantial number of Canadians who would be eligible for those programs. Whether we are talking about Toronto or my own riding of Acadie-Bathurst or Western Canada, there are men and women
who wonder where they should go to take advantage of training and retraining programs. Where do they go to find a job or prepare for finding a job, when they were laid off because a plant or business closed down?
The current constitutional crisis, Madam Speaker, is probably a matter of concern to the vast majority of Canadians as far as national issues go, but on the strictly personal level, there is no doubt that Canadians are worried about a rapidly changing situation. And that is why, Madam Speaker, I would not be surprised that pretty soon-in fact I was expecting to hear in the Throne Speech some echos of a Conservative vision of what Canada would be like at the end of the twentieth century and at the beginning of the twenty-first.
However, if that is not to be, I hope that we will not waste all our energy on the constitutional question, important though it may be, because if we want to renew the confidence of Canadians, we will have to chart a course that will make them feel secure.
It seems to many Canadians that the damage has been done in terms of public confidence in our programs which for many years were the foundation of confidence in this country for those people who were the most vulnerable.
I do not think it serves any useful purpose to simply berate the government or say it should not have done it. Those things have now occurred. I would like the government to address the question directly, rather than indirectly or obtusely, as to what it is going to do. For example, is the government considering a guaranteed annual income? Is it going to scrap a number of support programs and look at innovative, creative new ways to deal with people.
In closing I would say I hope, and I think I speak for many Canadians, that we will hear soon what the new vision of the Conservative government is with respect to medical care in this country, with respect to the Canada Pension Plan and with respect to unemployment insurance, and what kind of generous and caring government and country Canadians from all parts of this great nation can look forward to as we move to the end of this century.


Robert Evans Skelly: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak against Bill C-20 along with the rest of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party because we are concerned that the government has taken the tactic of reducing the national deficit simply by transferring the burden of program cost to the provincial governments. It is very much like somebody who gets into financial trouble and then goes out and robs the grocery store. He simply transfers his financial problems to the owner of a grocery store and so we are not actually reducing the financial problems of Canada or dealing with them.
What the federal government is doing by this legislation is not reducing the problem at all. It is simply transferring the burden of the federal deficit which was caused by federal policies of both the Liberal and Conservative governments over the last several decades to the provincial governments. We are seeing that the provincial governments are transferring those problems down to local governments, as my colleague from Surrey North indicated, or down to individuals in the case of people who are sacked from government jobs and who are seeing their salaries and benefits cut. We are simply transferring the problems which were created by the federal government down to the people who can least afford to bear them in this country.
That is not the way to deal with your problems. What this government should be doing is addressing its own problems head on rather than transferring them to other levels of government.
We are dealing with a bill which extends the worst provisions of Bill C-69, which was passed earlier, by extending the capping of various federal transfer programs for an additional three years and creating even more problems for provinces which have the responsibility to deal with programs such as health care, social services and post-secondary education.
What options do those provinces face? As I said before, they can either absorb the cuts themselves and run into debt or they can pass it on to local governments, which are the creatures of those provincial governments, or to individuals. There have been examples of both which my friend from Surrey North described. He described the Liberal government in Newfoundland which has cut back on health care services as a result of
Government Orders
what this federal government has done, cut back on hospital beds and fired about 10 per cent of the nurses in the province of Newfoundland in order to absorb the cuts that the federal government has passed on to that province.
Who is bearing the burden of the cost of federal deficit cutting? It has been passed through those levels of government and right down to those individual citizens of Newfoundland, the people who can absolutely least afford to bear those costs.
It is interesting to see the different reactions of the Tories when they examine what the Ontario government is attempting to do in order to shield its people from the worst impacts of the recession and when they comment on what is happening in Newfoundland.
They seem to look positively at what is happening in Newfoundland when a government sacks its employees and when the government cuts back on its social, health and education programs. This seems to be a satisfactory method of dealing with that kind of issue for the Tory government.
Ontario says: "We are here to serve the ordinary people of Ontario. We are going to shield these people from the worst impacts of the recession so that when the recession is over and when economic recovery returns, they are going to be better able because they will be better educated and they will have better health care. They will be better able to get back into the work force and begin to live productive and effective lives again." This government attacks that method of dealing with the problem.
What the government of Ontario has done is dealt with the problem head on. It said that the buck stops here. We have to deal with it and we have an obligation to defend our citizens against the worst impact of this recession which, by the way, was a recession that this Tory government created. If it were not for the high interest rate policy, the high dollar policy and the trade policy of this federal government, many of the provinces would not be dealing with the kind of serious economic problems they are dealing with right now.
It is interesting that Ontario has taken the tactic it has, because Ontario feels, very much like Tommy Douglas used to say, that the economy is here to serve the people and that the people are not here to serve the economy. Mr. Douglas used to say that the people were the most

June 17, 1991
Government Orders
important thing the government has to deal with. They were the responsibility of government.
I would like to congratulate Ontario for the way it has dealt with the problem. Once this recession is over and once the economic problems are over, and that will probably come with the end of the Tory government, the people of Ontario are going to be better prepared to go back and create a new and good economy for Canada. I think Bob Rae's government has done what any responsible government would have done in this country. I think he is going to be able to deal with the spending problems when the economy recovers in that province, because his people will be better equipped in every way to deal with those problems.
I think the real tragedy in this whole situation is that social programs are the programs least responsible for our deficit problems. Things like medicare, post-secondary education, unemployment insurance and welfare are the least responsible programs for Canada's deficit.
I would like to refer to a column that appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on March 13,1991. It was a column by Frances Russell in which she points out that there are Statistics Canada studies which indicate that the responsibility for the current $400 billion debt can be divided in a number of ways. For example, she says that 44 per cent of that $400 billion debt is due to corporate welfare programs which have been passed by this and by the previous Liberal government, tax forgiveness program which both the Trudeau and the Tory government have passed.
Another 50 per cent of the deficit, she says, quoting the Statistics Canada study, is caused by the interest rates compounding on the interest rates compounding on the original sums which resulted from the problem of those corporate giveaways of the last 20 to 25 years.
Ms. Russell says in her column that only 6 per cent of the deficit can be attributed to, and she has this in quotes, "living beyond our means or out of control government spending which are Tory code words for social programs."
So it is not the social programs in this country that are responsible for the debt which we have accumulated over the last 20 years. What is really responsible for the debt is the corporate giveaway programs which have been
extended to corporations and to the wealthy over the last 10 years by both Liberal and Tory governments during that period.
It is interesting to see how the economy affects different people in Canada. My wife was talking to a hairdresser here in Ottawa just a couple of days ago. That hairdresser is a single parent with a child.
She works eight hours a day. She works hard. She is good at the work she does and she is paid at the absolute minimum wage. Also, because she is a single parent head of a family, she has to budget fairly carefully. She has found out that when her income comes in and she compares it to her expenditures, the expenditures exceed the income by $70 a month. That is careful budgeting when you are budgeting down to $70 a month.
Madam Speaker, you are asking me to wind up. I have a 20-minute speech here and 10 minutes allocated.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: It is only 10 minutes at this time.


Robert Evans Skelly: If I may ask the House just to conclude my remarks, I would just like to wind up because the impact on this woman is pretty dramatic. She went to the welfare agencies in Ottawa and she was told that in order for her to make up that $70 through welfare she would have to quit her job and then they would give her enough to meet her expenses.
What kind of a country do we have here? What kind of a policy does this Tory government have when people who are good at their work are working hard, have families to raise and are careful with their expenditures, end up having to be told to go on welfare in order to survive in this country? That is the kind of policy that we are dealing with under this Tory government.

Mr. 'Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard): Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to Bill C-20, whose purpose is to amend four important Acts of Parliament, namely: the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Parliament of Canada Act, the Public Utilities Income Ikx Transfer Act and, finally, the Unemployment Insurance Act.
June 17, 1991

Madam Speaker, the debate this afternoon arises from the Budget brought down by the Minister of Finance on February 26 this year. I thought at the time, and I still do today, that this budget was bad for all Canadians. This budget did nothing to get Canadians out of a recession that was created by the unsound policies of this Tory government. In fact, the same economic policies that were responsible for this recession may be found in the latest Budget, and that is why I object to a bill that implements these policies.
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by the Minister of Finance on second reading, and I would like to repeat some of the remarks he made. First of all, the minister said that the government had, and I quote from Hansard, June 11, 1991, "-embarked upon a course that places less reliance upon government and taxpayers' pocket books."
Madam Speaker, the minister has a short memory, because two days earlier, at the meeting of federal and provincial Finance ministers in Charlottetown, he said Canadians were taxed to the hilt. He seems to have forgotten that middle-income Canadians are paying $1,500 more in taxes since the Conservatives came to power in 1984. The course chosen by this government is not one that will lead us to a just society, far from it. Earlier I saw the Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism) in the House. Bill C-20 which we are discussing this afternoon provides for a 24 per cent increase in premiums to be paid by employees and employers.
Madam Speaker, we know perfectly well that in Canada, at least 75 per cent of our businesses are small and medium-sized businesses. This means that these businesses, which are the foundation of our economy, will have a hidden tax to pay as a result of this 24 per cent increase. That is how the government tries to get us out of a recession that was created by its own policies: an excessively high dollar, high interest rates and, the icing on the cake, the GST, as a result of which the government collected $400 million more after the first three months it was in effect.
So, you can see the kind of position this government has put us in, not only with the May 26 Budget, but with all its economic policies since 1984.
Government Orders
Madam Speaker, before the Free Trade Agreement was signed, the government had promised that training courses would be offered to the workers who would loose their jobs to facilitate their reentry into the labour force. Three years later, we are still waiting for these courses, Madam Speaker. What has this government done since the Free Trade Agreement was implemented to ensure that adjustment programs are available to help the people who lost their jobs because of this agreement and the technology transfers flowing from retrain and find a new job? Nothing yet, Madam Speaker.
At the time Bill C-21 was passed, the government promised that $800 million would be allocated to manpower training. How much of these $800 million were spent, Madam Speaker? They are back today with yet another bill penalizing the workers and the work providers with a 24 percent increase in UI premiums. As we can see, Madam Speaker, there is still no training available and the unemployment rate is still very high, but the government is maintaining its high dollar policy anyway.
It is no wonder, Madam Speaker, considering this high dollar policy, the high interest rates and the GST, that Canadians go cross-border shopping on week-ends. The reason is simple: it is because of these economic policies. The government keeps helping companies, first with the FTA and now with these economic policies, to get established south of the border, and encouraging Canadian taxpayers, an incredible number of Canadians to go south. Statistics show, Madam Speaker, that billions of dollars are flowing out of the Canadian economy and in the American economy.
Did the government think about that when it came up with the free trade project? Did they think about a monetary policy that would have made it possible for Canadians to live well in their own country instead of moving south, Madam Speaker?
I see I have very little time left, but I would like to use this time, Madam Speaker, and I know my colleagues will take advantage of the prolonged hours to pursue the debate on these points, because I think that, in terms of economic policies, the Canadian people has had it up to here-I had another expression in mind but you would have called me to order for using unparliamentary language. Nevertheless, I think it is important to carry on with the debate.

Government Orders
I have been here for an hour, and not once has a government member risen to speak on this issue. What are you waiting for, to tell the Canadian people that your economic policies do not work? It is time to give a thriving economic policy to Canadians, especially the young people, so that they can find work and stay in their country instead of going south, to the United States.
Madam Speaker, it is an everyday occurence now to see people going shopping in the United States and companies moving south of the border because of the economic policies of this government.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, as I will demonstrate, this bill shows very clearly the bad attitude of the government. It also shows a rather deceitful way of governing the country. It is an attempt by this government to hide the truth as regards the points that were emphasized.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps it might be easier for the honourable member if, together, we agreed that it is 6 o'clock. I will recognize him again after the vote.


THE RAILWAY ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration, after the interruption on Friday June 14, 1991, of the motion of Mr. Corbeil that Bill C-ll, an Act to amend the Railway Act (grain and flour subsidies), be read a third time and passed; and the amendment of Mr. Dingwall (p. 1498).
Madam Deputy Speaker:: It being 6 o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the House will now proceed to the taking of the differed division on Mr. Dingwall's amendment on third reading of Bill C-ll.
Call in the Members.
(The House divided on the amendment which was negatived on the following division)
(Division No. 22)

Members
Allmand	Althouse
Angus	Baker
Belair	Bellemare
Benjamin	Bevilacqua
Black	Brewin
Caccia	Callbeck
Catterall	Clancy
Comuzzi	Dingwall
Duhamel	Edmonston
Ferguson	Finestone
Flis	Fontana
Gaffney	Gagliano
Gardiner	Gauthier
Harb	Harvard
Hopkins	Hovdebo
Hunter	Karpoff
Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast)	Kindy
Kristiansen	Langan (Mission-Coquitlam)
Langdon (Essex-Windsor)	Lapierre
Laporte	LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands
Lee	MacLaren
MacLellan	Mac William
Maheu	Manley
McCurdy	McGuire
McLaughlin	Mifflin
Milliken	Mitchell
Nault	Ouellet
Pagtakhan	Parker
Pickard	Proud
Prud'homme	Riis
Rompkey	Samson
Simmons	S kelly (Comox-Albemi)
Stewart	Stupich
Taylor	Tremblay (Rosemont)
Vanclief	Volpe
Walker	Whittaker
Wood	Young (Acadie-Bathurst)
Young (Beaches-Woodbine)-75	NAYS
	Members
Anderson	Atkinson
Attewell	Beatty
Belsher	Bernier
Bertrand	Bjornson
Blackburn (Jonqui&re)	Blenkara
Bouchard (Roberval)	Bourgault
Boyer	Brightwell
Browes	Campbell (Vancouver Centre)
Cardiff	Chadwick
Charest	Chartrand
Clark (Yellowhead)	Cole
Collins	Cooper
Corbeil	Couture
Crosbie (St. John's West)	Darling
DeBlois	de Cot ret
Desjardins	Dobbie
Domm	Dorin
Edwards	Epp
Fee	Feltham
Ferland	Fontaine
Fretz	Friesen
Gerin	Gibeau
Gray (Bonaventure-lles-de-la-Madeleine) Greene	
Grey (Beaver River)	Guilbautt
Hawkes	Hicks
Hoc kin	Hogue
Holtmann	Homer
Homing	Hudon
Hughes	James
Jelinek	Johnson
Joncas	Jourdenais
Kempling	Landry
Langlois	Larrivee
Layton	Lewis
Littlechild	Loiselle
Lopez	MacDonald (Rosedale)
MacDougall (Timis learning)	Malone
Marin	Masse
Mazankowski	McCreath

McDermid	McDougall (St. Paul's)
McKnight	McLean
Merrithew	Mitges
Monteith	Moore
Nicholson	Oberle
O'Kurley	PlourdePorter
Reimer	Ricard
Richardson	Robitaille
Roy-Arcelin	Saint-Julien
Schneider	Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth)
Shields	Sobeski
Soetens	Sparrow
Thrdif	Tetreault
Thacker	Thompson
Tremblay (Lotbini&re)	Timer (Halton-Peel)
Valcourt	Van de Walle
Vankoughnet	Venne
Vien	Weiner
Wilbee	Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-
Assiniboia) Worthy-119	Winegard PAIRED-MEMBERS Members
Corbett	Foster
Jacques	Keyes
MacAulay	Marleau
Redway	TYemblay (Quebec-Est)


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I declare the amendment negatived. Is the House ready for the main motion?


Some hon. members:: No.


BUDGET IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 1991 MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-20, an act to amend certain statutes to implement the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 1991, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee; and the motion of Mr. Sobeski (p. 1799).
Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, I began briefly a few minutes ago talking about this particular bill, C-20.1 indicated that during my address I would show that the government had a bad attitude toward the governance of Canadians generally. This is demonstrated by some of the things it is trying to do. This is a very sneaky way of going about the business of trying to govern the country. It is also trying to hide the truth.
What is this Bill C-20 all about? It is about transfer payments, and clearly it is about the extension of the freeze on health, education, the Canada Assistance Program. However, it also involves a number of other programs that are particularly important to Canadians
Government Orders
and to provinces: health, education, Canada Assistance Program, equalization, and I could mention several others.
It is also a bill that is extremely mischievous because it uses a stick approach. It is really the law of the jungle.
I want to quote from a research report that has been done on this. In this particular bill, which controls the transfers of massive amounts of moneys to provinces and to territories of Canada, we have a mechanism where, if the government chooses to do so, it could withhold funding in a number of areas. I think it is important to mention all of those areas. The equalization payments total about $8.4 billion. Tferritorial financing totals over a million dollars. Grants in lieu of taxes total $344 million. Public utilities income tax transfer payments total about $280 million. Statutory subsidies total about $36 million in 1991. The Canada Assistance Plan, as I mentioned, totals $6.4 billion. Crop insurance totals $207 million. The Official Languages in Education program totals $243 million. Miscellaneous health and welfare moneys amount to $170 million. Young offenders services amount to $158 million. Justice totals $77 million and transportation totals $69 million.
If the government, with the passage of Bill C-20 chooses to do so, and I quote: "It will be able to withhold transfers to offending provinces and territories" through these programs that I have just mentioned. That is why I have indicated that it is a mischievous piece of legislation that is extremely misleading.
It is also a piece of legislation that goes further in extending the ideological agenda of the government because it penalizes the poor provinces such as Manitoba, Saskatchewan, and the Atlantic provinces. The weak will get weaker, and much, much weaker unless things change and they change quickly.
Let me give an example of where it is particularly brutal.

It is in the field of education. I have talked several times about the administrative rate of 3 per cent that is levied on student loans. Those students are poor, of course, otherwise they would not borrow money if they have any. As far as assistance to students is concerned, I have already mentioned that the criteria have not changed since 1984, even though the inflation rate has gone up 30 per cent and even more. There again, the students have paid a lot more than they should have. It is unfortunate.

June 17, 1991
Government Orders
They also talk about the GST on books and learning material that students need.

With respect to the goods and services tax, I want to bring to the House's attention material I have received from a colleague and friend from my constituency. He brought this to my attention to allow me to share with others a very, very serious repercussion relating to the goods and services tax, and I want to quote from this material. "The effect the goods and services tax has on at least one series of books is as follows", and I am quoting from the material he has received from the publisher, an American publisher. The publisher says that: "Canadian orders will be priced under 'Other countries'"-notice that-"rather than the former pricing under 'the U.S. and Canada'".
The publisher explains that this is the result of high administrative costs connected to compliance with the Canadian GST that became effective January 1, 1991. Canadian members must also pay the 7 per cent GST tax on all orders shipped to Canada.
The publisher says: "We will add this 7 per cent to the invoice we send to the Society, and the Society should instruct members to include the 7 per cent GST in their payment to the Society".
The publisher points to high administrative costs in connection with the goods and services tax and, as a consequence, is raising the prices to Canadian customers. These price increases range from 14 to 19 per cent.
This is an example of not only the 7 per cent goods and services tax on education, quite apart from everything else that has been happening, but another administrative cost that has been added on in order to respond to the additional costs of administering this particular tax.
I find this shocking and I find it most unfortunate because the government has always said that it is simply 7 per cent with very, very slight administrative costs.
I have indicated that this bill attempts to control the transfer of moneys. Education and health has been hit in a massive kind of way.
From 1986, when the government started tampering with the formula, to 1995, the date to which it has
extended the freeze, we are talking about $30 billion less for health and education, $30 billion. That is quite apart from all of the additional costs that I have mentioned, the 3 per cent administrative fee, no change in student aid criteria since 1984, the goods and services tax and those additional fees that have been added on, no increases in training or retraining, and of course, the limitation of growth in research and development. I could go on. I have mentioned that student debt is growing out of sight, tuition fees increasing at an alarming rate. This government has really botched it this time.
It is unfortunate because it could have corrected a number of things. When one looks at what it has done with the economy-the $30 billion deficit, the $400 billion debt, despite the fact that it had a revenue base of $70 billion in 1984, and now it is in excess of $130 billion-you wonder where the money has gone.
It brags about its 3.8 per cent growth limitation. Of course, it has done that. It has off-loaded it to the provinces which off-load it to the municipalities, to the hospitals, to the colleges, to the universities, to the young men and women out there who are trying to train and become educated so that they can contribute fully to Canada, to our competitiveness as a nation.
I am really concerned that the government has stuck it again to the poor, to the poor provinces, to the students, clearly the handicapped, and many, many other Canadians.
Increases in unemployment insurance premiums are another example of a sneaky, sneaky approach to governing because it increased the premium to employees and to employers by over 20 per cent. It is an indirect kind of tax.
We have not looked at that sufficiently, because we would find massive increases to Canadians throughout this country.

I therefore ask the government to do the truly honourable thing and withdraw this bill immediately.
June 17, 1991


Rodney Edward Laporte: Mr. Speaker, in this country today, there is a lot of concern over unification. This is a country that seems to have an ongoing debate with respect to the Constitution.
There are other factors besides the Constitution that unify this country. There is some real cement outside the Constitution that keeps us united. Part of that has been a concern by Canadians for all the regions of this country.
We are a country made up of regions and we are a country that is spread out geographically over a large area. This country is a very large nation.
Historically we have found that in order to keep this country together, in order to keep a high standard of living for all Canadians, we have had to implement certain programs and certain policies. Not the least of those programs have been health and education. It is Canada that led the way. Saskatchewan started with the health care program, and the country followed. What we have is a situation where this government is transferring the responsibilities that it has taken in health and education to the provinces.
The reason for national programs in the first place was that certain provinces were unable to provide the same level of health and education that other parts of the country could provide. What we are seeing now is a reversion, a stepping back to that period of time.
When we transfer these responsibilities, we are again going to see certain areas of the country suffering far more than they already suffer. We have already seen health care cuts in Newfoundland. In my province of Saskatchewan, we have seen some major cuts in health and potential cuts in other areas.
Unless a government is going to look after the needs of the poor, the sick and the young, a country will not be healthy. The only government in this country today that has decided to look after those areas of our society has been the government in this province of Ontario under Bob Rae.
The NDP government has received a lot of criticism for its recent budget and for the direction it has taken. It has taken a direction that is different than the federal government and different than any provincial government, but it has decided and it has committed itself to maintaining as high a level of education, of health care and support for those people who need it as it possibly can.
Government Orders
Granted, it is in a better position than many provinces, but it has chosen a different path. It has been the New Democratic Party, over the history of this country, which has chosen a different path. We have chosen a path of committing ourselves to those people who are less fortunate and also to providing opportunities for all Canadians, not just a few.
If this is going to be a country that will stay united, if it is a country that will remain committed to itself, it is essential that we have a viable health care system and a viable educational system. Simply, what we are debating today is a further dismantling of that system.
Unless we proceed to change this attitude, this continued backslide is going to cause more problems with unity in this country than any constitutional change ever did. There are questions this government has to answer that it has been failing to answer. It must justify to Canadians why it is taking this attitude. Why has this government decided to abandon health care? Why has this government decided to cut back on educational transfer payments? Why is it doing these things? Why is it forcing provinces to make some very difficult decisions with respect to hospitals, with respect to nursing care and with respect to education?
The areas that are suffering the most are the areas that can least afford it. We have in this country today large rural areas of Canada which are suffering in many aspects. There are problems with transportation, there are problems with postal services which have been cut. This is a government which has made some vicious cuts in the postal service and is planning to make further drastic cuts. In fact, the government has indicated quite publicly that it wishes to see the postal service privatized. The postal service is now in the business of making money, not providing a service to Canadians. Rural Canadians suffer from that.
In the province of Newfoundland, Memorial University has just recently cut a program that was being sponsored by the university to provide required services to many of the small communities in Newfoundland. It was an extension service of Memorial University which has now been cut. There are something like 700 or 800 small communities in that province. Memorial University, with its extension department, was providing an educational service on a practical basis, where the need had arisen. With the cuts the Clyde Wells government has made, and with its own priorities, which I would suggest are not in the best interests of Newfoundlanders, it has affected that province and those small communities. We see it time and time again.

June 17, 1991
Government Orders
In my province of Saskatchewan, I have spoken many times on the difficulties that rural Canadians are suffering and the effect it is having on communities. It is also having an effect on the urban centres as well. Certainly the city of Moose Jaw is suffering as a result of programs of this government. No place in the province of Saskatchewan is immune.
What we really need is a government that is going to commit itself to providing essential services to Canada, not on a profit-sharing basis, but on a cost per service basis, a basis that is going to guarantee that all Canadians, whether they live in Toronto or whether they live in Watrous, Saskatchewan, or wherever they live, will be guaranteed a level of service. They need to know they can send their children to school and that there will be opportunities for them to attend university, and that the educational system will still remain as a high institution. As well, they need to know that the health care system will remain the vital institution that it still is today, although it is starting to slide.
I want to close by saying that the onus is on this government to stand up and provide its justification for the direction it is taking this country. It should provide answers for the direction in which it wants to see rural Canada develop, because it is making no comment with respect to that.
I think that Canadians would like to see some members on the government side let us know exactly where they stand with respect to this program, with respect to rural Canada and with respect to the regions of this country.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in this debate today, because the bill that we are discussing is Bill C-20 which implements the recent budget restrictions on transfers to the provinces and it is an extremely important bill from the point of view of federal-provincial relations. It is also very important from the point of view of the operation of hospitals, medical facilities generally and educational institutions across this country, very particularly in my riding of Kingston and the Islands where the second largest employer is Queen's University at Kingston. There are two universities, the other is the Royal Military College. It will not be affected by these
cuts since it receives its funding directly from the federal government. Kingston's hospitals and Kingston's universities feel the pinch as a result of the proposed changes contemplated in this Bill C-20 and I wish to register my very strong objection to what the government is doing in this case.
I would like to refer to the recent report by the National Council on Welfare which outlined the history of EPF cuts in the last few years, particularly since this government took office. The report is unchallenged by the government. We have had no evidence in any of the speeches given by government members today that would indicate that the report was in any way inaccurate. Perhaps to make clear what is going on, I would like to review some of the items in that report.
In 1986 the government announced that EPF entitlements would no longer grow with the economy as they had done previously but would be held to economic growth minus two percentage points. In 1989 it changed that two to three, so that the EPF entitlements would be held to economic growth minus three percentage points. In the 1990 budget, the government announced a total freeze on EPF entitlements for two years. That is for the two years following that 1990 budget, and after two years the EPF entitlements would increase at the rate of the Gross National Product minus three percentage points, in other words, the old rate.
In the latest budget, and the reason for the bill we have today, the government announced that the freeze on entitlements would continue through to the end of the 1994-95 financial year, and after that the formula of GNP minus three would again apply.
The effect of this freeze that has been imposed is effectively to deprive the provinces of very significant sums of money. I want to look at the chart provided by the National Council on Welfare which indicated the size of the cuts.
I want to point out that in 1986-87, normal EPF entitlement in Canada amounted to $16.8 billion. With the cuts that were imposed in that year, $10 million was given up. By 1991-92, this year, $4 billion a year has been foregone as a result of the changes that the government has introduced. In other words, the provinces are receiving $4 billion less than they would have received had these changes not been introduced.
June 17, 1991

By the financial year ending March 31, 1995, that figure will have more than doubled to $9.2 billion, a very very significant decrease in the federal contribution to provincial programs in education and health.
I suggest that it is becoming a disastrous chain of events.
Now I want to refer to the stealth with which this government has acted in this matter. The hon. member for Mount Royal in her most able speech earlier today indicated how stealthy and sneaky the government was being in its dealings with the public.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Sneaky anyway.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: I think stealthy also applies but it is pretending that the benefits are increasing. I have an example of that in an answer given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare the other day in this House. He was being questioned by our most capable deputy leader, the member for Hamilton East. I would like to read the question if I may. I think it is clear on its own, from page 1202 of Hansard.
Is he aware that as a result of his government's cuts this year, the provinces will be deprived of financing equivalent to 10,000 hospital beds across the country? Is he aware of the fact that at least 10,000 Canadians will be made to wait this year for health care because of his government's cutbacks to the provinces?
The minister answered:
Mr. Speaker, as usual the member for Hamilton East is wrong.
It shows how little the minister knows about the facts. He went on:
Money given to the provinces this year is more than it was last year, except that the way we provide the money could be different.
It certainly is different. He is not providing the money. There is a cut and the figures provided by the National Council of Welfare indicate there has been a cut. I can indicate the figure that is shown on its chart is $4 billion less than the provinces would have received had the government not made the changes that it did in the 1986, 1989, 1990, and 1991 budgets.
Government Orders
I think the record is a disgraceful one. It is a disaster. Surely the purpose of education in our country, post-secondary education in particular, is to equip our talented younger people with the skills they need to carry on effectively in the workplace. We have a pressing need in this country for scientists, for persons with scientific skills of a tremendous variety, and persons with high levels of education in a host of fields. We have ample evidence to support that in the fact that there are job opportunities for these people across our country.
At a time when there is a demand for better training and better educational facilities across Canada, the government is bent on reducing the opportunities for those educational institutions to expand and to provide better services. The effect of the government cutbacks is exactly the opposite.
In my own province of Ontario the significant reductions in the ability of universities to deliver programs has been very marked. I do not have the figures here today but I am sure I am stating the fact when I say that the payments to universities for their operations have not kept up with the rate of inflation. The universities across Ontario have been faced with major cutbacks in all kinds of areas in order to continue to pay a reasonable salary to their employees.
It is safe to say also that university salaries have not been overly generous. There have been significant cutbacks in the ability of the universities to pay those salaries. Services have been reduced. Class sizes have increased very significantly.
Recently I attended a function given here on the Hill by the University of Toronto. When I mentioned that in my years at Queen's University I had attended a class with 15 or 20 people in it, I was told what a surprise that was because such classes are a great rarity in Ontario these days. University classes are usually 50 and 60.
That is only because of the cutbacks. It is not because the universities have grown tremendously since those times. They have not, but what has happened is the universities have been unable to afford to maintain

June 17, 1991
Government Orders
staffing levels. They have had cutbacks in staffing levels, in personnel, in the classrooms, in the maintenance of their buildings and in their ability to keep up campuses and staff them properly. I suggest that part of the reason for those cutbacks is this government's attitude as exemplified in Bill C-21.
I wish the government were more far-sighted in its approach to this problem. I do not understand why it feels that given its boasts about trying to help research and education in Canada it would engage in this kind of thing and then make the statements such as those made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare the other day. Certainly it is true that the provinces are receiving, in dollar terms, slightly more this year than they did last year. However, it is much less than they would have received had the government not announced the freeze in the budget of this year and last year.
To suggest that they are receiving more and, therefore everything is rosy is misleading. It is wrong, it is incorrect and the minister knows it is wrong. He knows he should not make such statements and indeed he should come back into this House, apologize for his statements and withdraw this bill at once.
While I am on my feet may I say-


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


An hon. member:: No.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, this is another example of the government saying one thing and doing another.
Time and again we have seen the Prime Minister, his ministers and members of his caucus standing up and saying how important post-secondary education is to Canada, how important it is to educate our youth, how important it is for the growth of our economy that we have a well trained and well educated population.
They say it with a very concentrated, serious look into the television camera here in the House of Commons, and give the impression that they really do favour post-secondary education. They then go and introduce bills, such as Bill C-20 which continues the cuts to the provinces for post-secondary education. They are doing this at a time when the universities in the provinces are
increasing their tuition fees. They are doing this at a time when they have cut the moneys available for summer employment for students. They are doing it at a time when jobs are very difficult to obtain, when the rate of unemployment is extremely high.
What will be the result? The result will be, putting all of these policies of the government together, that fewer and fewer people will be able to go to university. The fees will be higher as a result of these cuts that the federal government is dishing out to the provinces. Students will not be able to earn their way to universities with jobs in the private sector or the public sector because the jobs just are not there and the federal government is cutting its support of those programs.
What else is being cut in this bill? Another example of the government saying one thing and doing another. Some people call this sort of politics the politics of rhetoric, the politics of smoke and mirrors where you try to give the impression with that very serious Prime Minister look that you are really in favour of health care and post-secondary education. Then you cut them in another measure another day.
It is the same with health care. The government speaks very highly of its commitment to our health care system-one of the best in the world. It was one of the best in the world, the Canadian medicare system. Here it is, once again, cutting these programs.
If we look at the amounts that the federal government was originally expected to contribute to the provinces under the EPF program-which is the program through which the federal government helps the provinces with respect to post-secondary education and medicare-in 1986 and we look at what in fact it is doing as a result of the bills to cut these contributions starting in 1986, we will see that between 1986 and the year 2000, as a result of this legislation and other similar pieces of legislation, the federal government will have taken away $97.6 billion from the provinces. This is almost $100 billion. Well, $100 billion has to mean a lot to provinces which must find moneys to support their universities, their hospitals, their medical research centres and so on.
For government members to say that this will not mean anything or to give us the impression that they are not really cutting but increasing funding is a fraud on the Canadian population.
June 17, 1991

The government is trying to pretend that because the amounts in dollars are increasing that it is not cutting. In fact, the provinces, the universities and the health care institutions were led to believe that they were going to get a certain amount in the years 1990-91 and 1991-92 and so on. However, because of bills like this they are not going to get those amounts of money. They are going to be left holding the bag, so to speak.
What is also very insidious about this type of legislation is that the more the federal government cuts the more it aggravates the regional disparities in this country. Under the EPF formula when the federal government redistributed money to the provinces for health care and universities, it was assuring by those moves that the Atlantic provinces and other provinces of Canada- Quebec, Saskatchewan and so on-that are not as wealthy as Ontario and B.C. would have equivalent institutions. It was assuring that no matter where you lived in Canada, you could be assured of hospitals, health care and universities that were of a high standard.
If the federal government takes away the money as it is doing in this bill, it is saying that if you live in a rich province like Ontario-and I say that relatively speaking, because Ontario is also suffering a veiy serious recession right now- you have better health care facilities and better universities, because there is a lot of industry and a lot of development in Ontario, but if you live in Newfoundland or Prince Edward Island or Nova Scotia, and you have to rely to a much greater extent on provincial resources, how can you keep up? That is a result of this Bill C-20.
So far I have only spoken about the cuts to health care and to post-secondary education, university education. By the way, post-secondary education also includes the community colleges and the CEGEPs in Quebec, not just universities.
The bill also breaks another promise of the government, and one that I was very closely involved in. That promise concerns the premiums which must be paid for unemployment insurance. When the government introduced its famous Bill C-21 to cut unemployment insurance benefits a few years ago and to transfer some of those benefits into training programs, when it did that the minister made a commitment that unemployment insurance premiums would remain the same for three years, for 1990, 1991, and 1992. At the same time the
Government Orders
government withdrew the federal contribution to the unemployment insurance fund which was a very large amount. Under the law, as it then was, if the rate of unemployment went above a certain percentage-I believe it was 6 per cent-then the federal government was obliged to pay for the benefits as a result of the increased unemployment.
With Bill C-21 the government cut out entirely the federal government's contribution, meaning that the entire unemployment insurance fund would have to be supported by the contributions of employers and employees. At the same time, it said: "We are going to freeze contributions by employers and employees to $2.80 per $100 of income, and that would stay the same". However, what did we see in the budget this year and what are we asked to approve in this Bill C-20? The government broke its promise and now, just one year later, it is increasing the premiums which are an additional tax on employers and employees.
As I have said, this government continually says one thing and does another. I do not know how it comes to the conclusion that Canadian citizens are stupid enough not to see these things. But they are not stupid. They see through the smoke and mirrors game of the government and that is why the government is at 14 per cent in the polls.
The people of Canada are not stupid. They do not believe the Prime Minister when he gets up and makes pious statements on television that he believes so sincerely in education and health care and he is going to do this and that. They have come to the point where they do not believe the government any more. The government has no credibility. Yet it still gives us these kinds of bills, asking us to approve cuts that government members have made speeches on to the contrary. We are not going to support this bill. What we are trying to do in this debate is bring the attention of the Canadian public to this because we know that we cannot reverse the government's point of view alone. With all the opposition parties in this House, we are unable to touch that government. It will not listen to us, even though we were elected by a large number of Canadians. What we are trying to do by these televised debates is tell the Canadian people what is being done to them by this government. Hopefully, the Canadian public will rise up and with great public outcry condemn this government, and maybe they can turn back this bill.

Government Orders


Lyle Dean MacWilliam: Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister was first elected to this House, in his veiy first speech in the House, he declared: "Give us 20 years and you will not recognize this country".
Less than a decade later, Canadians are painfully aware of the awful reality of those words of the Prime Minister. Canada today is a nation at a crossroads. This government has been driving this nation relentlessly toward its vision of a new world. It is a corporate vision.
Bill C-20, which we are debating here today, seeks to limit federal expenditures to the provinces in the areas of health care, post-secondary education and income assistance. This bill is an instrument of that government's vision. It is a vision where progress is measured in corporate terms rather than in social terms. It is a vision that does not consider the value of community. It is a vision which few Canadians share.
It is a centralist vision of a Canada where the regions are being sacrificed, slowly but surely, in favour of the fat cats in Ottawa and Bay Street. Almost 60 years ago the social democratic movement way back in the 1930s, the Dirty Thirties, was formed at that time because of a growing distrust of this centralist vision of Canada. It grew from a coalition of prairie farmers, of British Columbia dock workers, of people from all walks of life, who said to the government of that day and that time: "Enough is enough". Almost 60 years later, we are continuing to fight these same battles, this time to save those kinds of social programs and regional programs that we fought so long and hard to implement over the years.
I want to say, Mr. Speaker, we talked about it a few days ago in the House, this government simply does not understand the concept of community, it does not understand the idea of regions, it does not understand people. As my colleague that spoke just prior had so eloquently stated, that is why this government is so unpopular with the people of Canada. That is why it is hell-bent for defeat in an election.
Understanding the concept of community means supporting the very things that this legislation is looking to dismantle. It means supporting our universal health care system, it means supporting those unemployed workers put out of work by this same government's economic blunders.
In British Columbia, which is the province that I hail from, and particularly in my riding in the interior of B.C., in the Okanagan-Shuswap, forestry workers and mill
workers have been sidelined by this government's past policy of high interest rates, of an artificially high dollar, of a made-in-Canada recession, and in particular, to its complete and utter capitulation to the United States with regard to the 15 per cent softwood export tariff.
In some areas of my riding, up in the Sicamous-Malak-wa area, unemployment approaches upward of 40 per cent. This government has completely neglected those people. It has completely misunderstood the need for job creation and the implementation of job retraining programs that this legislation just completely disregards. Understanding community values means adequate funding for municipal and provincial RCMP services.
It means supporting rural post offices where people gather each day to share stories. It means supporting regional job creation programs that will put unemployed workers back into production. It means adequate funding for post-secondaiy education so our young people will not have to leave their own communities in order to seek job training or higher education.
We have a real challenge ahead of us. These are tough economic times, nobody will argue that point. As this bill before us demonstrates, this government's response to that kind of challenge is to attack Canada's social programs, our first class medical system. Its response is to steal $100 million out of the Canadian Jobs Strategy Program which was a regional job development program that really worked and helped get people back into the employment lines.
Its response to that challenge is to opt out of the funding for unemployment insurance programs and shift that burden on to the backs of the workers and the small business community through this kind of legislation that increases the premiums that those businesses and workers have to pay.
The government's response to the economic challenge of today is to cap the extended program funding to the provinces which will essentially starve the provinces for funds in order to maintain quality standards for health care and education.
Over the next five years, we determine as a result of this particular legislation that it is going to cost British Columbia and the taxpayers of British Columbia over $911 million to maintain the funding that is being stripped away from this kind of legislation that the federal government wants to implement.
We ask the government to recognize the increased need for assistance to the provinces, particularly those provinces hardest hit by this made-in-Canada recession. What is its response? To extend the 5 per cent cap on the
June 17, 1991

Government Orders
Canada Assistance Program, forcing the provinces to bear the extra burden of income assistance payments?
The government hides behind the argument that it is simply broke. It argues that it has to tighten its belt. It argues that the nation's debt is out of control. If it is out of control, it is so because of this government's economic policies and not in spite of it.
In 117 years, going way back from Confederation to 1984, the total accumulated debt was $187 billion. Since 1984, that debt has more than doubled. During eight years of this government's reign, that debt has doubled to over $389 billion. It has been eight years of Tory rule and more than double the accumulated debt since Confederation.
Was this growing debt ever mentioned during the last election? Not a word was mentioned. Not a peep. The Minister of Finance, who was back during that time, said that the country was in great financial shape. He promised what added up to $20 billion in election promises: child care programs, nuclear submarines and increased support for social service programs. As soon as the government was elected, then we suddenly find out that the country is in the poorhouse.
Rather than maintaining the programs that the government promised, what does it do? It cuts. It takes out the broad axe and it cuts programs like VIA Rail, Canada Post, the RCMP, the CBC, national health care programs, unemployment insurance programs, post-secondary education funding and research and development funds.
All the time, not a loophole was closed in the tax write-offs of corporate Canada. I could go on in great detail about the need for real tax reform, which this government seems to completely ignore with this type of legislation.
Let me summarize by saying that if a test of a government's economic policies is a measure of the gap between the privileged and the less fortunate in this country, then by any measure this government has failed the test and failed it utterly.
This government has been an unmitigated disaster for Canada. It has lured us into a trade deal we did not want.
It has bludgeoned our national programs. It has created its own made-in-Canada recession. It has driven jobs and people out of the country. It has with a single roll of the dice taken us to the brink of our own demise and it is time we got rid of it.
As the quote has said, and I have repeated it before, it has no vision and when there is no vision, the people perish.


Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, after hearing many of these very eloquent, articulate and erudite speeches on the troubles that this government has visited upon this poor nation, I wonder whether I can meet the standards set by my colleagues.
Certainly when we talk about Bill C-20 one can only speak with outrage. With a bill such as this we are eroding some of the basic programs, the large educational, medicare and social programs which have become the hallmark of this country and we are doing it in such a surreptitious fashion with a bill which seems so inconsequential and technical as to almost be overlooked.
We have seen all hon. colleagues in this House over the course of this day debate, bring and underscore all of those elements which can only be described as so negative as to be corrosive and erosive.
What does this mean for federal-provincial relations in this country? It means, as some of the colleagues from my caucus have pointed out, that the government has turned its back on a pro-active role for Canada at a time when our country cries out for a government that is active in the direction of bringing people together, joining regions together and bringing provinces to the table.
What does our government do? It says no, the most important issue is one of balancing books, ensuring that the budget be reduced in terms of its public debt and reducing the dragon that has resisted all attempts over the course of the last seven years, the deficit.

Government Orders
Under the guise of ensuring that the deficit comes under manageable control, the government is abdicating all responsibilities of nation building, bringing people together and ensuring that all Canadians have a stake in this country. They can only ensure this stake, live and materialize it, if they see that all of their hard-earned income, sacrifices, and commitments to their communities, provinces and fellow Canadians result in the kinds of programs that give them access to Canadianism and to a patriotic involvement in medicare, education and those standards that define us, both by our aspirations and by our achievements, those standards that give each and every one of us in this country and elsewhere an indication of what we stand for, both from the point of view of youth and from those who are not as young.
Mr. Speaker, I know that I speak to someone who is more than interested in some of the figures that I draw to your attention. By the end of this decade 14 per cent of our population will be in the area we call seniors. With an aging population, what are we doing? The government says it is going to establish the kinds of cuts and restraints that will ensure that people who fall into that category of seniors, those people who may not be so fortunate as to have access to the kind of jobs that will provide them with a standard of living to which they have become accustomed and through no fault of their own have seen eroded, will not have sufficient funds at their disposal.
We are going to abdicate our responsibility to Canadians who have contributed to this country by sweat of brow, by dint of participation and by a desire to ensure that the political format, the economy and the social structure be such that they take care of each and every one of us, one and all, at a time when we need them the most.
One of the tragedies of today is that the cuts in the EPF financing put at greater risk many of those seniors who rely on their Canada Pension Plan contributions and Old Age Security which combined, assuming that individual Canadians were able to participate fully in the previous program, will give them very little more than $900 a month, on an eroding basis. That $900 a month in the city of Toronto will get them very, very little. The cost of living in a city like Toronto when one takes into account the amount one has to pay for rent and then for a food basket, leaves very little for anyone who falls into the category of seniors.
What are we doing as a country? As I said earlier on, we are turning our backs and abdicating our responsibilities to those people who contributed mightily to the creation of a system upon which they can no longer draw. It is almost criminal that I would have to introduce this example. In Canada we have many Canadians who come from other countries. Fully 8 million Canadians do not have their origins in this country, and they are proud Canadians nonetheless. They have contributed to the wealth of this country. They continue to strengthen its social and cultural fabric, but they still have ties, cultural and spiritual ties elsewhere.
The countries that spawned them still recognize contributions. I might cite one. The country of Italy contributes to former Italian residents. They are Canadian citizens and Italy contributes to them and to their well-being; in this country over $250 million annually in pensions, $250 million annually. Italy infuses a quarter of a billion dollars into our economy because those people simply exist.
Our government taxes them to the tune of better than $50 million. In other reciprocal arrangements with Italy and other countries, our government does not even transfer one-half of that tax on those pensions alone. Those citizens represent for us an enormous wealth just by being here, with this infusion of cash that comes in. It allows the government not to give the attention it should to the plight of citizens, because it knows there is a quarter of a billion dollars annually coming from a generous foreign authority. It knows it can draw a further $50 million from such revenues.
It has become even more lax in terms of accepting financial responsibility for the benefits of its citizens. Those citizens, like so many other seniors, are subject to increasing property tax and increasing provincial taxes, and then have to be subjected to a GST of 7 per cent.
We have seen what has happened. GST has driven hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the border looking for a better bargain for their hard earned cash. Those seniors do not have such an opportunity. We, as members of Parliament, as a Canadian government, turn our backs on those who need us most. Who speaks for them if not those members of Parliament from this side of the House who point out all of the deficiencies of a bill such as Bill C-20? I compliment my colleagues who have done such a great job in pointing out all the pitfalls.

I also compliment them for pointing out that all of those issues that relate to the unemployment insurance program, which we fought so dearly last year prior to the implementation of Bill C-21, are now beginning to show all of the nefarious components that we predicted and that the government denied. Over the course of this last year, the Minister of Finance has seen fit to increase by 24 per cent the premiums charged on those who do work.
Very few of us are taking the government to task for withdrawing from the plan completely in the first place and still putting an extra burden on workers and employers who are still fortunate enough, despite the government's economic program, to be in a situation in which they can either provide work or work.
What has the government done in that regard? In my own city of Toronto, which used to be one of the richest places in Canada, the unemployment rate is higher than that of any two Atlantic provinces together. If you are unemployed you do not care what part of the country you ;ome from, you are unemployed. There is no income, no food on the table for your family, no extra income, no disposable income to stimulate other economic activities by spending.
What happens? This government abandons both students and unemployed with its SEED program. On the average in the city of Toronto, $14,000 per riding is expended on the SEED program.
I can only say, along with my colleagues, that the priorities established under C-20 are absolutely skewed in the wrong direction. If anything, more of us should be outraged at the profanity that is being perpetrated by this government. We should say no to C-20 and no to some of these financial programs which the government wants to force on us.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my hon. colleague from Eglinton-Lawrence for his most articulate appeal. I fear, however, that this appeal falls on deaf ears.


Mr. Weiner:: No way, we heard every word.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Ah, yes. The minister says he heard every word. The hon. minister has been hearing every word lo this two and a half years. The hon. minister, however,
Government Orders
has not managed to change the course of government policy in this direction, thus leading to, among other things, a variety of wiener roasts across the country, but we will let that go unsaid.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Just came from Halifax.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Where they had another wiener roast, yes.


Mr. Arseneault:: Oh, that is not nice.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Is it not?


Guy H. Arseneault: No.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: Ihke the high road, Mary.


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I am advised by my hon. colleague over here to take the high road. I think he would agree with me, however, that it is hard to take the high road. It is particularly hard to take the high road when you are an Atlantic Canadian and when you see what has been done deliberately, barefacedly to the four provinces clinging to the coast of Canada during the past seven years of this government.
I cannot count the number of times I have stood in this House and argued, cajoled, orated and pleaded with this government to stop turning a blind eye to what is effectively an increase in human misery in the Atlantic provinces.
My colleague from Eglinton-Lawrence mentioned that the unemployment rate in Toronto was more than two Atlantic provinces put together and those are shocking statistics. However, the 20 of us on this side of the House who represent Atlantic Canadian ridings can tell the House that numbers like that have been a daily occurrence for far too long in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and in Prince Edward Island.
The cuts to Established Programs Financing pour salt on a wound that may already be fatal. There are two areas I want to talk about in the short time I have available to me tonight on this very important bill. The two areas are health care and post-secondary education.
Regarding health care, today in The Ottawa Citizen the president-elect of the Canadian Public Health Association says that his association research shows that reduced federal funding will mean a loss of $3.3 billion in health care money available this year and a loss of $30 billion by the end of 1996.

June 17, 1991
Government Orders
Thirty billion dollars. I do not know about the rest of you but I have great difficulty encompassing that figure. I cannot really get my mind around it. The figure is too large. So what can I get my mind around? I can get my mind around the fact that the cuts to Established Programs Financing put forward in this bill by this government are dealing a death blow to health care in Atlantic Canada, in Canada in general but in the four hard-pressed provinces of the Atlantic more so than anywhere else.
I will come back to health care, but I also want to talk very briefly about post-secondary education, again in the Atlantic provinces. I do not know how many times I have stood in this House and cajoled and pleaded and berated on behalf of the Atlantic universities. I have some experience with the Atlantic universities. I was a faculty member at three different universities over the past 10 years. I was a part-time faculty member at that. Believe me, part-time faculty members know just how poorly paid faculty members can be. It is so bad indeed that at the medical school in Halifax, doctors have to pay to practise as well as to teach at Dalhousie medical school. That is how hard-pressed our medical facility is in Halifax.
We have a number of universities in Atlantic Canada. I happen to have graduated from two of them, Mount St. Vincent University, the only women's university in the British Commonwealth, and Dalhousie University which bears one of the proudest names for its professional schools in particular in this country.
I have served on the boards of governors of both those universities as well as teaching at both of them and having been a student there. On top of that I was President of the National Board of the Alumni of Mount St. Vincent University. Therefore, I am fairly familiar with the workings and the financial exigencies faced by those universities. Believe me, the cuts to Established Programs Financing are putting a crimp in the style of those universities which could be fatal to their future health.
In the Atlantic universities now we have the oldest physical plants, the lowest faculty salaries and the highest university tuitions.
My colleague from Eglinton-Lawrence mentioned the fact that the SEED grants were down this summer. Down they are. With tuition rates as high as they are in Atlantic Canada, with the cuts across the board-and I am thinking particularly of Nova Scotia right now-both provincially and federally, the jobs for young people, for university students this summer are few and far between.
Let me illustrate. A relative of mine is opening up a business in Halifax which will hire six or seven people. Two weeks ago he held interviews and 400 young people showed up for the interviews-400. My young cousin, who is beginning this business, was depressed by the fact that he had to say no to at least 393 of the people who showed up looking for jobs. People who want to work, people who need to work so that they can pay the extra high tuitions that have to be charged to keep the Atlantic universities going. And what is there for them? Precious little.
Mr. Speaker, I see that you are telling me I have a minute left. Perhaps I can wrap into that one minute all the pleas, all the cajoling, all the berating and some of the insulting that I have done over the past two and a half years since I came to this Chamber. During that time I have had the pleasure of representing the people of Halifax and the pain of watching what deliberate government policy has done to them. So I say to the minister present, to the members present on the government side of the House, think about what you do. We are a part of this country too. We are citizens of Canada, equal and proud and with as much right to the joys and the benefits of Canadian citizenry as anyone. We resent most highly the way your policies have dealt with us and with our part of the country and we want to remind you that this resentment will not go unmarked.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on the budget bill, Bill C-20.
I participate because I profoundly disagree with the economic and budgetary policies, not only of this govern-
June 17, 1991

ment, but of successive governments, in fact, going back in this country to Confederation.
We happen to live in one of the most privileged comers of the globe. We have a relatively small population, with a relatively high level of technological experience and infrastructure yet, as we look around our country today, we see how we are increasingly squandering our heritage.
I think any budget, including this budget and this bill, must satisfy three tests: first, what does it do about the inequality of wealth in this country? We have a country which, despite our wealth, has one of the worst records in the industrial world for a spread between rich and poor. Over a million Canadians suffer serious chronic poverty, many of them children, most of them women. Over the last six years; in fact, one can reach back into the seventies under successive Liberal and Conservative governments and find that we have increased that spread between rich and poor. This budget, this legislation, fails the test of what it can do for equality of income in Canada.
The second test is how a government, in this case the federal government, uses the power of budget and uses its economic policies to insert progressive social and environmental policies into the marketplace. It now appears that virtually all of us believe that the market has its place, the market is a very efficient tool for the redistribution of certain economic considerations and for developing a certain aspect of our wealth.
But I think all of us agree that the market fails to consider social and environmental factors in its decisionmaking. It is the responsibility of government and of Parliament to insist on certain social and environmental values, for example, the right of collective bargaining, fair standards in the workplace, pay equity, an end to discrimination, environmentally sound policies. This budget erodes the relatively inadequate policies that we already have.
Speaker after speaker has drawn the attention of this House to the abject failure of this government to take its responsibilities seriously for the maintenance of social and environmental standards: the shift of responsibility to the provinces, the erosion of our health care, the inadequate support for poverty groups and for women's programs in this country, the complete failure to take an effective lead in preserving our environment. This budget fails that test.
Government Orders
The third test is whether this budget contributes to the creation of wealth, how we as a country earn our living. We just had the advantage of going to Halifax 10 days ago and visiting the shipyard. I know from my own constituency in Victoria the state of the shipbuilding industry in this country. It has been allowed to collapse under the neglect of Conservative and Liberal policies over the last two decades.
We look at industry after industry. Liberal policies turned the fishing industry over to private companies and this government failed to respond to the disaster in the fishing industry on both coasts. We look at the destruction of the agricultural industry across Canada, the free trade agreement with its destruction of the manufacturing industry. Almost every industry and the way we have to earn our living has been turned over by this government to the marketplace, a marketplace which is increasingly owned by the United States, and other foreign capital, whose interest is not Canadian, whose interest is only in making a dollar for foreign investors.
As a result, our ability to earn our living is fast seeping out of this country. The government in the Speech from the Throne pays lip service to education and research. It says this is critical to make us competitive. Yet where is the money? Where is the leadership? What is the government doing? Zero. This government is failing future generations of Canadians in failing to ensure that education, training, and research in Canada is of first quality. It is a national responsibility that this should happen, that education, training and research should be given top priority. It is the only way in which we can compete in the future, and it will not be enough for the government to make nice statements in the Speech from the Throne. This government, in this bill, and in this budget, has failed Canadians.
Where do we go from here? We look at where the government has spent money. I am the defence/disarma-ment critic for our party and I have the budgetary estimates for defence. Let us look at some of the things it has chosen to spend money on. It cut programs for seniors, for women, for children, for prevention of crime through social development, it cut programs across the board that will help the ordinary people of Canada.
But look at some of the things it does spend money on. This year, in my own constituency of Victoria, the estimates provide $1,597 million for a new cadet dining hall at Royal Roads, and nearly $1 million for additional cadet quarters. For projects in other parts it is going to

Government Orders
spend over $16 million for new facilities for Canadian Forces maritime experimental and test ranges, $241,000 for new jetties, $695,000 for a new officers' mess, $3.7 million for programs in Kingston, Ontario, a naval reserve armoury, $1 million for a naval reserve division in London, $4 million for Moose Jaw, and nearly $8 million in Chilliwack, one of the bases that is said to be up for closure.
There is spending in area after area. There is $1.2 billion being spent on maintaining troops in Europe years after the cold war is over. For equipment which can only be used in Europe, for practical purposes, over $1 billion has been committed by the government in this year's spending estimates. In area after area, this government has its priorities backwards.
In the New Democratic Party, we say that it is time to give the people a voice in how the funds are to be spent. If you went to the people of Victoria, Mr. Speaker, and asked them whether they wanted to spend $2 million on a cadet mess at Royal Roads, they would say no. Sewage treatment is more important in the Victoria area. Education and training, support for universities and community colleges in our area is more important. Support for health care and health facilities in our area is more important. Even customs facilities are sorely neglected by this government. Public parks in the area are sorely neglected by this government.
It is time we had a fundamental change in how this country is governed. For too long, we have been governed by parties whose essential responsibility has been serving the corporate sector which is now primarily owned outside our country. It is time we had a change, a new government and it is time the people of this country spoke out and said: "This budget is wrong. This legislation is wrong. We demand a change."


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, this bill is probably one of the most aggressive pieces of legislation ever introduced by the Government of Canada.
It should be known as the "bond and gag" provinces bill. That is exactly what it does. If we were to use a nautical metaphor, perhaps they are pushing the provinces to the end of the gang plank with a blindfold over their eyes. It completely restricts and inhibits the provinces for operating programs which people have been used to for years.
I am thinking of programs of not only health and education. The government started by cutting back on Established Programs Financing. What it means in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador is the closing of hospital beds. Provinces such as that depend heavily on federal transfer payments to operate hospital beds and classrooms.
They depend heavily on those transfer payments. When those transfer payments are cut back, one of two things has to happen. Either the province has to increase its costs because it is limited in the amount of tax revenue it can collect or it has to shut down classrooms and hospital beds. That has happened in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador as a result of the regressive and restrictive acts of the Government of Canada.
Beds have been closed and classrooms have been closed in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. I should say too that this comes at a time when this country supposedly is entering what is known as the information economy, in which knowledge and education are more important than ever before.
In a province which has the highest employment rate of anywhere in the country, the young people who want a chance at a job, an occupation and a good way of life are restricted from getting that at the very time when that opportunity means more to them than ever before. That is the effect of the policy of the government. It is not just the last budget. The last several budgets have consistently restricted the growth of Established Programs Financing to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
Now the government has said: "If as a result of the cutbacks we have made in transfer payments for health services, you institute additional costs on the people who receive those services, that health care and that education, and if provinces such as Newfoundland and Labrador institute additional costs, you are going to be penalized. How are you going to be penalized? You are going to be penalized in the most severe and restrictive way you can imagine. We can cut any transfer payments to you as a province."
June 17, 1991

Any program that the Government of Canada now enters into with the province of Newfoundland and Labrador as a result of Bill C-20 can be cut. If that government were to try to maintain the level of services that were previously offered by increasing costs, which it would have to do as a result of the cutbacks of Established Programs Financing, it would be penalized by equalization payments being cut.
The province of Newfoundland is trying to increase those equalization payments. Equalization payments can be cut by the Government of Canada if the province of Newfoundland dares to institute costs which simply maintain the level of services that people are getting at the moment.
What else can be cut besides equalization payments? Grants in lieu of taxes can be cut. The community of Goose Bay is probably not unique in Canada.
It is one of those communities which does not have an established, strong private sector. It depends very heavily on the Government of Canada facilities in that town. There is an air force base in Goose Bay and about 2,000 people owe their living directly or indirectly to that. The municipal government depends on that as another community would on Abitibi or the Iron Ore Company of Canada or MacMillan Bloedel.
The Government of Canada in Goose Bay is in exactly the same position as a major corporate taxpayer and the Government of Canada transfers every year to the municipality of Goose Bay a great deal of its budget, the budget it, at the municipal level, uses to provide normal services to the people who live in that community.
If Bill C-20 goes through, grants in lieu of taxes can be cut. If the province of Newfoundland dares to increase costs to maintain a level of services, the Government of Canada can now cut out the grants in lieu of taxes to Goose Bay and every other similar community in Canada.
What else can they cut?
Native people, the Inuit, the Innu who live in Labrador depend for their education, their health services, their post-secondary education and for many of the services in their community on federal-provincial agreements between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador because the Government of Canada transfers to the province of Newfoundland an amount equal to what it pays per capita on average to a native person anywhere else in this country. It transfers every year to the province of Newfoundland that amount for providing services to native people.
Government Orders
If Bill C-20 goes through and if the province of Newfoundland and Labrador has the temerity to increase costs in order to maintain a decent level of services, grants for native funding to Newfoundland and Labrador can be cut.
What else can be cut?
Many women who want to enter the work force are single mothers. Seventy per cent of all post-secondary education students, part time, are women. Many of those, probably the majority, are single mothers. Why do they want an education? They want an education because it is the only passport they have to success.
What happens to their children while they go after that passport? They must have day care.
If Bill C-20 goes through, the Canada Assistance Plan, which is the main vehicle for providing day care to those who have children and who yet want to take advantage of post-secondary education, can be cut automatically and arbitrarily by the Government of Canada if the province of Newfoundland and Labrador dares to increase its costs in order to maintain services because of the cutbacks of the Government of Canada in Established Programs Financing and other budgetary items. If it does that the Government of Canada has the right under C-20 to cut back the Canada Assistance Plan.
This is bad enough anywhere in the country. It is doubly worse in rural areas or in single industry towns and which are well away from urban centres, but in northern Canada it can be even more disastrous.
I have just cited the example of Goose Bay, a community of about 8,000 people which could be severely affected if grants in lieu of taxes are cut.
I thought that the Government of Canada had realized that it simply cannot treat everybody in this country equally. There are some who are stronger and there are some who are weaker, there are some who have a strong private sector and some who have a weak private sector. There are some who have well developed economies and there are some who have less well developed economies. If you treat everybody the same across the board, then those who are far away and remote suffer more than others do.
I thought the Government of Canada had realized that because in its policy on the taxation of northern benefits it showed some understanding. I would say that the policy now of this present government is more generous and more comprehensive than the policy under the previous administration. All we were able to do was maintain the lack of taxation of northern benefits. The present government has instituted a wider and more

June 17, 1991
Government Orders
generous program. I thought it understood the special needs of northern Canada, but it obviously does not.
Under this particular bill, under this most regressive piece of legislation we have ever seen, it has the right to cut payments to native peoples, payments to students, payments to patients in hospital, payments to single mothers and payments to all those who are disadvantaged wherever they live in Canada, in cities but more particularly I am thinking of those in remote areas.
This bill cannot be allowed to pass. Those of us in this Chamber must do everything possible to stop it. We must say now, to all those Canadians who are listening across the country that it is time we had a revolution like the one we had on gray power when the government tried to tamper with pension payments. We saw a movement among the people in this country which forced the government to cancel that particular initiative. The same force must be used here, the same political power must be used here.
If this legislation goes through, it will give the government an ironclad grip, unmercifully bearing down on the economic future of young and old alike, all Canadians no matter where they live, in urban or in rural communities.


Mr. John Harvard (Winnipeg St. James):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-20 is part of the continuing and sorry saga of Tory cutbacks in federal transfer payments to the provinces. If there were no cutbacks at all, there would be no need for this bill, no need whatsoever. It would be business as usual. The government would continue as a full partner in medicare.
According to this government, the purpose of the bill is to provide the government with the power to enforce provisions of the Canada Health Act. With the government getting out of medicare in just a few years down the road, it would soon have no say in the operations of our national health scheme.
The Tories, and this is their line, have brought in this bill ostensibly designed to punish provinces which do not
live up to the Canada Health Act. This is the Tory way of saying that we care about medicare. Do not believe it. Do not believe it for a minute. Do not believe it because there is a good chance that this bill, if it ever became law, would be thrown out by the courts.
Under our Constitution, the administration of health care is the sole prerogative of the provinces, and the provinces certainly will not let go unchallenged any law that would punish them for the way they run their health schemes.
The federal Tories have had a say in medicare since they assumed power in 1984, but only because they provided cash. Once the cash is gone, so goes the say in running medicare, Bill C-20 or no Bill C-20; it is as simple as that. In other words, this bill is a sham and it is a fraud. If the government really cares about medicare the way it says it does, then I say this: fund medicare. It is the proper thing to do. It is the only thing to do. It is exactly what the Canadian people want this government to do. Fund medicare and fund it properly. Medicare is a source of pride for all Canadians. It is one of the high points of our civilization. It provides us with one of those wonderful differences between ourselves and Americans. The Americans are deeply jealous of our system, deeply jealous of medicare. They wish they had it, and they wish they had responsible politicians who would give it to them.
Canadians were shocked when they heard a report from the National Council of Welfare the other day. The report said: "Soon medicare will be effectively dead as a national health insurance system." This does not come from a partisan political party, it comes from an advisory group to the federal government itself, and a highly respected group at that.
According to the welfare council, if the current trend continues, these cash payments to the provinces will first disappear in the province of Quebec just five years from now. The last payment, according to the current trend, will occur in the fiscal year 2009-2010, and that would be to the territory of Yukon.

If this happens, what would be the result? According to the Welfare Council-we will pick a group which is not partisan on this issue-it says, and I quote: "Without substantial federal cash payments, regional disparities would be magnified and people in poorer provinces would have to make do with health care services which are inferior to the services enjoyed by Canadians who happen to live in richer provinces".
The people of my province, Manitoba, understand that. They know that if they are left to finance medicare on their own, they would not be able to afford the kind of health care scheme that richer Ontario could sustain. If that were to happen, in a sense Manitobans would be turned into second-class citizens. That, to me, is totally unacceptable. To me there is only one kind of Canadian citizen, and that is a first-class Canadian citizen.
I believe, to my very core, that Canadians will punish any political party that does not give its full support to medicare and that is why I believe that they will defeat this government at the first opportunity. Canadians also have this warning. They warn anyone to beware of politicians who advocate putting medicare in the hands of the provinces. It is a warning because it is just a code word for getting rid of medicare. Those politicians know very well that the smaller provinces cannot afford the kind of medicare that we have become accustomed to.
What have we become accustomed to? Have we become accustomed to a scheme, to a national program that we really cannot afford? Not on your life. On a comparative basis medicare is a bargain. It is a bargain, particularly compared to what is available in our big neighbouring country of the United States of America. We Canadians spend only 9 per cent of our wealth on medicare, and from that 9 per cent of our wealth we receive full coverage.
What is the case in the United States? It spends 12 per cent of its wealth on its national health scheme. Under its scheme almost 40 million Americans have no health coverage at all, and another 100 million Americans have only spotty coverage. Think of it. We spend 9 per cent for full coverage while Americans spend 12 per cent of their wealth and they have poor coverage.
Government Orders
One other thing, and this should always be driven home, we spend no more as a percentage of our wealth on medicare today than we did 10 years ago. That is an absolute fact.
I want to say a few words about post-secondary education. I want to mention post-secondary education because these cutbacks in transfer payments to the provinces also affect federal support of our colleges and universities. Federal funding has made it possible for huge numbers of Canadians to go to college and university without having to pay exorbitantly high tuition fees. That is another of those wonderful differences between ourselves and Americans. Any cuts in the area of post-secondary education are very worrisome to me, and I would say very worrisome to most Canadians. I say that because of the real link between poverty and the level of education.
The Welfare Council printed a graph which shows very clearly the link between poverty and the level of education. This graph shows that almost 20 per cent of family heads with an elementary education live below the poverty line and 60 per cent of Canadian individuals with elementary education live below the poverty line. How does that compare with those who have gone to university? About four per cent of family heads with university education live below the poverty line and about 12 to 13 per cent of those with university education live below the poverty line. That is the link between post-secondary education and poverty and it is something that we should not tolerate.
The Tories talk about increasing competition around the world. How are we going to compete in this global environment if we cut back on education?
This bill should be defeated and it should be defeated now because it is simply a continuation of the erosion of federal support of medicare and post-secondary education.


Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to rise tonight to discuss this bill. It is a bill which furthers the off-loading of federal responsibilities on to the backs of the provinces and, as in the case of other matters, the backs of municipalities as well.

Government Orders
In Saskatchewan we are only too aware of the results of the off-loading of federal programs on to provinces and municipalities. In fact, thanks to the efforts of members of the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association the matter of RCMP funding was reviewed and readdressed by this government. RCMP funding is something that would devastate the funding base of Saskatchewan's smaller communities. Thanks to Mayor Carlson in Melfort, who headed up the Saskatchewan Urban Municipalities Association negotiation team, and representations by numerous members of Parliament in this House the issue was readdressed by this government.
We can only hope that the government will also be reconsidering the moves that it is making in terms of off-loading for education and health care spending as well.
Certainly, the off-loading restricts the provinces in their ability to do other things. Those other things are within their own area of responsibility, such as funding infrastructures within the provincial boundaries to ensure that we have good quality facilities for the delivering of education and health care, and also the structure of sewer and water systems in the provinces, highway systems in the provinces, and the other structures that we rely on for improving our quality of life.
A province like Saskatchewan, significantly rural in nature, relies heavily on that collective support base from the province and the federal government. The support base helped, during the CCF years in Saskatchewan, to deliver the electrification period to the rural areas. Without that we could not fly over Saskatchewan today and witness the bright dots of light all over that province.
It also means that if the province has good funding for education and health care it can support the other areas of economic concern which are the direct responsibility of the provincial governments.
I speak specifically here, coming from Saskatchewan, of agricultural issues. I personally would like to see the federal government take more responsibility for agricultural matters. I do not believe that the provinces should have the level of responsibility that they are being forced to accept for agricultural issues. Certainly if the funds were available to adequately finance education and health care then the provinces would be freer to fund
such programs as the crop insurance and income insurance programs which have been developed recently. I am also quite critical about the agricultural support program that exists today.
I am very proud of the work done by New Democrats at our recent convention in Halifax, held just a weekend ago. Party members from all across Canada attended a national convention in Atlantic Canada. One of the main resolutions coming out of that convention was one dealing with farm policy on the prairies. It was very pleasing to me to recognize the unanimous support of Canadians from across the country for our agricultural policy.
I would like to bring parts of it to the attention of the House, because I think there is nothing more important than communication, sharing information and understanding. One of the things that impressed me about our convention in Halifax was that Canadians from broad, diverse backgrounds got together to discuss issues, the Constitution among them. This agricultural policy was developed by people who have an interest in shipbuilding, mining, real estate, teaching, small and medium sized businesses, and people who just have an interest in people in general.
The delegates to the convention recognized that GRIP, the Gross Revenue Insurance Program, a joint program supported by the federal government and negotiated with the provinces, did not return the cost of production to the farmers. They felt that it was very important for the government to develop programs that would do that. The delegates looked very closely at the way the GRIP was being administered and said: "This certainly off-loads federal responsibilities on to the provinces". It was another one of those programs which was tying the hands of the provinces for funds which they should not have had the responsibility for.
The federal government funds a piece of the program, but the producers, the farmers within that province, do not have access to those funds unless the provinces agree to support the program as well and kick in a certain amount of funding for it.
In Saskatchewan we are now seeing the provincial Conservative government being forced to harmonize the provincial tax system with the federal government's GST. They are saying it is because they have to support this federal government agriculture program financially.

Therefore, off-loading has really hurt the people of Saskatchewan. I do not have to tell them, but I tell members of the Conservative Party here in the House that the people who just a few months ago were not paying any tax on restaurant meals or children's clothing are now finding that they have the 7 per cent GST and now a brand new provincial 7 per cent tax being added on to those items and in the near future to all services-mechanics fees', accountants' fees, lawyers' fees and those sorts of thing which were not previously taxed either by provincial or federal government.
When this group of people looked at the agricultural policy, they felt that there were some very important things that had to be dealt with. The New Democratic Party has now developed a support program for agriculture, supported by members of the party from Newfoundland to Vancouver Island.
The resolution of the party is very specific. It asks that any agricultural program not down-load the costs to the territorial or provincial governments and to the farmers. It also asks that any program be based on the cost of production and not some artificial numbers that the government or someone else comes up with. It has pay-out levels capped at a reasonable level. In other words, in order to prevent the large farmers from getting the lion's share of any dollars available on support programs, they are evenly distributed to ensure that the small and medium sized producers get more, I would say in this case, than their fair share of the support dollars available. More important, the policy supports the marketing of all grains and oilseeds through the Canadian Wheat Board and would like the name of the Canadian Wheat Board changed to the Canadian Grains Board, indicating that the export marketing of grain would include oilseeds as well as grains.
Certainly the policy supports the reinstatement of a two-price wheat policy in Canada, the policy that this government implemented in order to help lower the price of breads in Canada because we would be able to bring in lower priced wheat for milling. In fact anyone who has bought bread in Canada knows that the change in the two-price wheat system has only been to the detriment of the farmer and not to the benefit of the consumer.
Government Orders
Our policy also suggests and demands that we continue the interest-free, cash advance program on a permanent basis and that it establishes a market assurance program in which farmers would be paid for unsold grain at the end of the crop year and storage would also be paid for that grain. Finally, the program would have to be sensitive to environmental concerns and to the need for sustainable production.
There is a great need for strong agricultural policy in provinces like Saskatchewan. We cannot deliver those types of programs if the hands of the provinces are restricted by federal policies tied to the off-loading of funding.
It is time this government and its supporters rethink the way in which they are looking at this type of government control over spending and develop much fairer programs that are much more inclusive for the Canadian population.


Catherine S. Callbeck: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity tonight to express my views on Bill C-20, an act which extends the government's cap on Established Programs Financing.
As members know, this bill already reduces the federal government's commitment to the federal cash payments that go to the provinces for education and health. It also invokes the increase in unemployment insurance premiums which were announced in the last budget among other things.
This government has been talking for some time about the need for Canada to be internationally competitive. I do not think anyone quarrels with that objective, but certainly a government is judged or should be judged on its deed and its policies, not on its words and on its rhetoric.
In 1991 the former finance minister said that the world economy continued to grow more fiercely competitive. I want to quote what he said. He said that the fundamental problem is that our underlying ability to compete in the world marketplace has been falling behind that of our trading partners.
I commend the government for recognizing the problem, but I certainly condemn it for doing nothing about it. In fact, this government continues to bring in policies that have a negative effect on the institutions which train, educate and prepare our future work force for the challenges of international competition.

June 17, 1991
Government Orders
How are we going to compete in this fiercely competitive, international, economic environment if our work force is not equipped to compete?
This legislation that we have before us this evening continues the cap on the federal transfer payments for health and education. Right now universities are already feeling intense pressure from the federal government's cutbacks to date. We should be encouraging Canadians to attend post-secondary institutions. Instead this government is making policies that have a detrimental effect not only on the quality of the education experience, but on the financial capability of young Canadians to afford this necessary education.
I look at my own province of Prince Edward Island where just recently the University of Prince Edward Island announced that it would have to raise tuition fees 15 per cent. Student loans have not increased since 1984. Students are also feeling the effects of the GST. They even have to pay the GST on books. They have also been inflicted with a 3 per cent administration fee on student loans. These policies are all detrimental.
To tell you how it affects these students, I want to quote what one student has to say. A 21-year old honours physics student from the University of Prince Edward Island was quoted in an Island newspaper to have said: "I blame it on Mulroney. He really put a damper on higher education. He has been cutting grants left and right, freezing funding to the provinces. It is no wonder".
This government's policies are causing a deterioration of our education system both in quality and accessibility. It is not just the students, the educators, and the opposition members of Parliament who are concerned about this government's lack of support for education. The report by the National Council of Welfare released earlier this month expressed concern about the ability of the less prosperous provinces in our country to shoulder this increased debt that the federal government is pushing on to them.
Another report concluded saying that their continuing fear is that economically disadvantaged people in all areas of this country, as well as Canadians from the less
prosperous regions of our country, will be denied equality of opportunity if the federal government continues the present trend.
If one looks at the per cent of the Gross National Product that each of the provinces contributes to health and education spending one sees very quickly that the eastern provinces will be at a distinct disadvantage as the federal government reduces its commitment to education and health.
In my province of Prince Edward Island health and education spending is equivalent to 10.5 per cent of the GNP, whereas the average in Canada is a little over 7 per cent. What it means when we pay 10.5 per cent of the GNP as compared to the average of 7 per cent is that the burden of educational funding is much greater for provinces like Prince Edward Island. The impact of the decrease in the federal financial commitments is much more on this region than on any others.
In other words, what I am saying is that provinces with larger and stronger economies will have less difficulty raising that tax revenue than those with smaller economies.
If this type of government policy continues, there is no doubt that it will lead to regional discrepancies in education quality and inaffordability. It will mean that students in a more prosperous province which can afford to maintain and increase its level of educational funding will have a greater opportunity to succeed than students in a less prosperous region.
The long and short of this is that many of our young people will not receive the training, the education or the skills that will be required to compete in a highly competitive global market.
I have talked about the future, but I want to speak for a couple of minutes about what this bill will do to our present ability to compete. Certainly small business today is considered the engine of the economy. Roughly three out of four new jobs are created by small business. You would think that if a government wanted to put people back to work and stimulate the economy, it would bring in policies to help small business.
June 17, 1991

This government does not do that. In fact, it brings in policies that hinder small business. In this bill before us tonight, we have unemployment insurance premiums that will be increased 24 per cent. This increase becomes effective July 1 and this extra expenditure follows a record of bankruptcies of approximately 77 per cent last spring.
I think that one of the most frustrating aspects of this government's lack of policies for small business is watching as the government afflicts its attack on small business, knowing that small business is not the corporate elite. We are not talking here about the jet set, the executive lifestyles, the Bay Street society, the private clubs or the yachts in the harbour. We are talking about the farmer, the fishermen, the tourist operator, the comer bakery and the antique dealer.
Many of these people live in my riding, and they spend a lot of time, effort and energy in their work. Yet, this government continues to inflict more taxes, more paperwork and more reasons to reduce its work force than to expand it.
I want to conclude by asking this government to withdraw this bill. By doing that, it will help to ensure that our work force will receive the education, the skills and the abilities to compete in this very fast-changing, global economy. Also, it will help to ensure that we build a strong, competitive, Canadian economy.


Guy H. Arseneault: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak to Bill C-20. As you' know, Mr. Speaker, this legislation deals with federal-provincial fiscal arrangements and federal post-secondary education and health contributions.
Since 1977, the federal government makes contributions to health care and post-secondary education through the transfer of tax points and cash payments. Federal support for health and post-secondary education was supposed to keep pace each year with overall economic growth. Unfortunately, since 1986, support has been reduced as result of a series of decisions made by the Tory government, ostensibly to reduce the deficit. If this trend continues, according to the latest report by the National Welfare Council, the entire amount transferred in cash for health and post-secondary education under the 1977 fiscal arrangements would disappear in a matter of years.
Government Orders
Furthermore, if federal support continues to be cut, Canada will be faced with 12 different provincial and territorial systems instead of the national medicare system we have now, which varies very little from one end of the country to the other. If balkanization occurs, we will probably see a return, in many regions, to extra billing and hospital user fees, something the 1984 Canada Health Act had practically wiped out.

Bill C-20, the Budget Implementation Act, is to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, Parliament of Canada Act, Public Utilities Income Thx Transfer Act and the Unemployment Insurance Act.
This is a very regressive bill. It will affect the fiscal arrangements between the provinces and the federal government, all provinces and the territories and the federal government.
It can affect areas of health care, child care, welfare payments, taxes, grants in lieu of taxes to municipalities, aboriginal grants.
It will affect farmers in the sense that they can cut back on crop insurance. It will affect students in post-secondary education especially and an area that has not been mentioned too much today, listening to the debate off and on, official languages and education. It will affect the young offenders services by the possibility of those transfers being cut to provinces.
It could affect legal aid programs and last, but not least, it could also affect transportation grants to provinces and municipalities.
That is one area that I am very concerned with also, seeing that it could very well affect moneys that are destined to airports for their operations. I have the Shilo airport in my riding which is in much need of funding at all times and cannot afford to be cut.
When we talk about Bill C-20,1 mention that it does affect the UIC and the unemployment insurance provisions within this legislation reverse the government's promise to help finance the program in difficult times.
If we go back a little bit and we look at the 1989 budget, the then finance minister pledged and I quote: "The government will continue to contribute to the financing of the program in difficult economic times when it is inappropriate to raise premiums and prudent to allow deficits to build up in the unemployment insurance account."

Government Orders
Given the extremely difficult economic times now faced by Canadians, the need for the government to contribute to the fund is quite obvious. I find that very amazing. I guess down east we would not use the words "broken promises". We will be very outright and use another word which is not allowed in this House, but we are very concerned with the way and the direction that this government is going in at this point in time.
When we look at the bill in its entirety, I guess the biggest chunk of it has to do with cash payments from medicare and higher education. One of the areas that we should look at is the report recently published by the National Council of Welfare. They they seem to substantiate their information. I will just read a quote here from one of their press releases. It says here and I quote: "federal cash payments from medicare and post-secondary education will disappear within a few years unless new fiscal arrangements are negotiated with the provinces and territories."
Looking at that report, and I notice that a number of my colleagues used that report for the basis of their speeches today, I should point out to those who are listening that the National Council of Welfare is not a Liberal organization. It is not a Conservative organization. It is non-partisan. It is a group of individuals mandated to advise the minister on matters pertaining to welfare, to the Health and Welfare Act and whatever. It is a group that is there to advise the minister. What are they actually saying? One of the things they are saying is that if the cuts continue, we could end up with 12 vastly different provincial and territorial medicare systems; we could end up with extra billing; we could end up with hospital user fees-we saw that in the past; we could end up with wholesale closures of hospital beds. In fact one of the statistics that is mentioned indicates that with these cuts there are going to be about 10,000 hospital beds closed across Canada.
Coming from Atlantic Canada, there is certainly an issue down home, and that is the question of regional disparities. According to the National Council of Welfare, regional disparities are going to be increased. So it
certainly is a concern for me and for members from Atlantic Canada.
If I could quote from this document, Mr. Speaker, on page 6 it says: "Without federal support, poorer provinces would be left with essentially two options, neither of them appealing; they could either raise provincial taxes to intolerable levels to support health and higher education as they now stand, or they could eliminate all but the barest of medical and educational services."
What we are going to end up with and what the council is trying to warn us of is a system for the rich and system for the poor. We could be going back in history, back to medieval days, if we want to use those terms.
On the weekend I had occasion to meet with a number of my constituents off and on, and at that time one of the questions they posed-and I have been getting this question quite often-is: What is going on up there in Ottawa; what is wrong with this government; can it not see the light up there? This bill is a continuance of that. They cannot understand how a government could be so cold and callous in introducing these types of bills.
This bill in itself, this Bill C-20, is a blatant attack on rural Canada, it is a blatant attack on all of Canada and it is certainly not acceptable to most citizens in Canada. It is going to force provinces such as mine, New Brunswick, to make some tough decisions, and they have already been forced to make tough decisions. The people of New Brunswick recognize that the province of New Brunswick, the government that is in power at the present moment, is forced to take these decisions because of the government in Ottawa cutting back on these fiscal arrangements.

Mr. Speaker, at a time when Canada is going through a critical period in its history, the government must take steps to promote national unity and reduce regional disparity. However, if the federal government keeps reducing cash payments, regional disparity will only get worst. Residents of provinces that are less well off will then have to make do with health services and post-secondary education that are lesser in quality than the kind enjoyed by Canadians in the richer provinces.
June 17, 1991



Mr. Speaker, I would urge all members to vote against this bill.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Markham seems to have finally figured out where he stands on this bill. Perhaps I can offer him some further thoughts before he begins.
I would like to stay and hear what he has to say, but first of all I would like to associate myself with-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Markham-Whitchurch- Stouffville.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to perhaps test the generosity of my colleague over there. We worked on the finance committee together and have a very good friendship and chemistry and so on, and perhaps it was an oversight of yours, Mr. Speaker, but I thought I was going to start speaking now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It was really no oversight, I just thought I would give the hon. member little more time to prepare. The hon. member for Ottawa South.


John Paul Manley: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to associate myself with a number of remarks that were made in this House on a very similar issue, and I would like to read them into the record because this previous speaker in this House dealt with the issue of how the federal government funds health care and post-secondary education in co-operation with the provinces.
These remarks were given in the context of changes in those arrangements that were being proposed by the federal government of the day.
The government had large revenues in earlier years; it established a number of programs and forced its will on provinces; it invaded the provincial fields of education and medical care. But now it does not have the money nor the will to control its spending so that it can continue to finance its obligations and responsibilities to these programs. It now wants to shift the problem over to the provinces, it wants to shift the deficit problem which has built up to such enormous proportions at the federal level down to the provincial level.
He goes on:
Government Orders
This is no time for confrontation and it is no time for unilateral action. This is a time when we need co-operation to nurse the tender relationship which exists between the two levels of government.
These remarks were made on March 23, 1982 by the member for Etobicoke Centre, currently the Minister for International Trade. He goes on to say a few other things to which I would like to refer:
We have a problem here which is partly financial, the government has a major deficit problem. This has been building up over the past 10 years and I think the government must deal with the problem. However, there is a very clear question as to how it should be addressing it. Should it be addressing that problem from the standpoint of unilateral cuts, throwing the problem of the deficit onto another level of government, or should the government be addressing the problem in its own house?
He goes on:
The government does not seem to realize that there is only one taxpayer who pays the taxes for the federal government, for the provincial governments, as well as for the municipal governments. That taxpayer does not care where the service comes from, he wants the service. That taxpayer wants to see the service provided to meet his needs. This is why we have such a cynical attitude toward government today. This government is showing utter contempt for the taxpayer by doing that sort of thing. Therefore, we must rethink this whole system, this system of federal-provincial relationships, so that we do not have such unseemly squabbling between the two levels of government over which one gets credit and which one pays at the end of the day. Governments must get together.
That is the end of the quotation, but the member for Etobicoke Centre, currently the Minister of International Trade, the former Minister of Finance who brought in the budget which contained these changes to the EPF arrangements, was exactly right. He was exactly right. It was not the time then, it is not the time now, it is never the time in a federation like Canada for governments to act unilaterally on fundamental matters that go to the relationship between governments.
The problem that we have today which this bill tries to address is only partly a financial problem. I think we would be wrong not to recognize that there is a financial problem and that it needs to be dealt with. The fundamental problem we have here goes beyond that. What are the basic things that Canada consists of? What is the nature of the social contract that exists which binds us together as Canadians? Why is it that we have a nation stretching from east to west against the normal pull of geography, with a very unlikely combination of people, which has managed to stay together for almost 125 years?

Government Orders
What are the kinds of commitments that we make to one another each time we pay our taxes, each time we go to the polls and vote? What is it that we are saying to one another? I suggest that we are saying something not just about where we were bom or what our citizenship is, we are saying something about the nature of the relationship we expect between ourselves as individuals and our governments.
I want to look for a moment at the provisions that have been introduced in this budget relating to unemployment insurance. Again, I would like to quote the member for Etobicoke Centre, who presented the 1989 budget in which the concept of changing the unemployment insurance fund so that it was entirely funded by employers and employees was introduced.
He said: "The government will continue to contribute to the financing of the program in difficult economic times when it is inappropriate to raise premiums and prudent to allow deficits to build in the unemployment insurance account".
I am not sure that anyone has noticed, but we were in a recession from the second quarter of 1990 which continued until the time this budget was presented. Surely to goodness this is when it is inappropriate to raise premiums, to use the minister's words.
Look at what was done six days prior to the 1988 election when, of all things, the economy was not in recession. In 1988 the economy grew almost at 5 per cent. What did the employment minister at that time do? On November 15, 1988, six days before the election, she announced that employer and employee premiums were to be cut and weekly benefits were to be increased. That, at a time when the economy was in a period of rapid growth, was absolutely disgraceful.
What happened a few short months after that? An overheated economy had to be cooled down by a policy of high interest rates, following a year not only in which unemployment insurance premiums had been reduced, but in which income taxes had been reduced and in which monetary policy according to the governor of the bank himself was perhaps unduly relaxed just before an election. We go into 1989 and interest rates have to be increased. What was the effect of that? By the second quarter of 1990 we were in a recession.
The Minister of Finance, as he soon became and as he was not yet back in 1982 when he gave those remarks which I began with, was talking about a cynical attitude toward government. He had seen nothing at that time. Cynicism is now the order of the day in Canada. I suggest that the kinds of things that this government has done with tax policy, with unemployment insurance and with transfer payments, are at the heart and root of much of the cynicism we have in Canada today.


Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to mention a few facts because I think some of the statements made tonight are not necessarily factual.
Let me just talk a little bit about some comments I have heard just in the past few days. Most people or certainly a good number, when we talk about transfers to the provinces, seem convinced that we are reducing the dollar amount. Let me make it very clear that we are not. The dollar amount over the years since we have been in government has gone up by billions and billions. Our plans are that the dollars will continue to go up. Let the record show that dollars are being increased. The percentage increase is less, but it is still up.
Thanks to perhaps the media and the opposition parties one would think we were slashing the CBC by several hundred million dollars. Not so. Our total subsidies to the CBC will be between $800 million and $900 million this year, and they are going up.
I think our record on restraint has been, in all honesty, quite remarkable. Our average increase in spending for almost seven years is about 3.6 per cent or 3.7 per cent. Compare that to the provinces over the same period. Their average increase is about 7.2 per cent. Regrettably Ontario is leading the pack. Under the Liberals the average increase was a little over 10 per cent. Now we have a new government there and the increase planned by the NDP government is something over 14 per cent, if you can believe that.
We have taken moves on privatization: Air Canada, Petro-Canada and de Havilland. These were all moves which neither of the other parties would ever have supported. We have made some very difficult decisions quite recently in terms of much needed restraint. The public servants' level will be frozen this year. There is a commitment to reduce the layers of management in the bureaucracy. The commitment includes the termination of 10 per cent or at least 475 executive jobs.
June 17, 1991

Rather than me as a member of the government party going on and on about a number of these accomplishments, I would like perhaps to take a different route to get this in a better perspective.
I would like to make some quotes from an article in The Ottawa Citizen last June 13 written by Marjorie Nichols of The Ottawa Citizen staff. This is clearly an impartial reporter and a woman very respected, certainly on Parliament Hill. I will start with some of her quotes:
Historians in pursuit of causes for the calamitous decline in popularity of the federal Conservatives need look no further than the public relations disasters of their fiscal policies.
Instead of distributing the fiscal facts to their taxpayers, the Tbries succumbed to their fatal weakness: the need to put a "spin" on reality.
The facts are that this country has its debt under control and its spending under the most stringent restraint in the western world.
This is not Bill Attewell speaking; this is Maijorie Nichols. She continues:
Yet, the perception persists of a nation managed by a gang of irresponsible spenders in a nation teetering on the edge of bankruptcy.
In truth, the Conservatives have succeeded in their seven years at the helm in reversing the countiy's fiscal direction.
The Government of Canada is now running a program surplus of $13 billion. Next year's surplus is expected to be $20 billion.
To put it another way, if it were not for interest payments on the national debt, this country would be running a huge cash surplus.
Program spending is all government spending except for payments on the accumulated debt, which now totals about $400 billion.
The Tories have literally reversed the country's fiscal picture by adding $30 billion annually to the credit side of the country's ledger.
The Liberals during their last years in office were borrowing to pay for government programs, a situation that can be likened to a taxpayer using a Visa card to pay for groceries and rent.
The Ibries have turned around the entire fiscal mess that they inherited. Instead of borrowing to buy the groceries, they are now paying off their Visa card.
The budgetary deficit numbers actually distort the fiscal truth. In fiscal 1984-85, the Liberal budget deficit was $38.3 billion, of which $16 billion went to pay for "groceries" -federal programs and salaries.
Government Orders
In fiscal 1991-92, by contrast, the Conservative deficit will be $30.5 billion, all of which is interest charges on the national debt.
Instead of bragging about its fiscal management, the Mulroney government decided immediately after the November 1988 budget to try to persuade Canadians that the national debt was about to make the sky fall all over Canada.
Then-finance minister Michael Wilson kicked off his doomsday campaign in his February 1989 budget speech.
"We, as Canadians, have a serious problem," Wilson told the Commons-"our large and growing public debt. In the time it takes to present my budget, that debt will grow by $3 billion."
The Tories also exaggerated the national debt by including nearly $100 billion in bookkeeping accounts that bear no interest debt. Things like future public service pensions.
It was scary stuff. And the government's sales campaign was a rip-roaring success. Every Tbry with access to a microphone stoked the fires of fiscal doom with verbal kindling.
A major attraction of the Reform party-perhaps its major attraction-is its pledge of fiscal frugality. Leader Preston Manning runs around the country promising to cut 15 per cent of all federal public service middle managers.
The marvel is that Manning is attracting crowds with such absurdities. There are 50,000 fewer public sector jobs in this country than when the Tbries took over. And federal spending has increased by an annual average rate of only 3.7 per cent, an achievement unmatched anywhere.
Common sense has now overcome the Tbries, who have begun telling the unvarnished truth about the state of the nation's fiscal affairs.
Like others, I was skeptical when the prime minister appointed Don Mazankowski to serve as finance minister. Mazankowski is a former small-town businessman with no economic expertise.
It appears, though, that the Mazankowski appointment may turn out to be a brilliant stroke. The opposition has not been able to lay a mitt on the straight-talking, straight-dealing former car dealer from Vegreville, Alberta.
Hying to pin "Maz" to the carpet in the Commons is a task akin to pinning jello on a bulletin board.
Canada's fiscal future is bright. Trouble is, Canadians do not know it because of the Tbty spin doctors.
I have laid it all out there. That is the end of her quotes. Clearly, we have a big communications job ahead

June 17, 1991
Government Orders
of us. We have taken more difficult decisions in the past three years than any government took in the past 50 years. Making decisions for the long-term good of Canadians has its price. It is easy to make short-term decisions, handing out money here and there. I am very proud to have been a member of this government. We expect to go onward and upwards as we get that message out.


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know why it took the member 15 or 20 minutes to prepare to read a column by Marjorie Nichols. If he did anything more in his talk than that, I did not catch it.
Ms. Nichols has many good qualities, especially the fact that she was bom and raised in Alberta. I do not think she has ever passed herself off as a financial analyst.
The "ungetaroundable" fact for the member is that during six good years in the economy those opposite have added, I think, $210 billion to the national debt of the children, the parents and the grandparents of this country. Paragons of fiscal responsibility they are not. I know the members think that compound interest only began in 1984. It did not. It began way back in the never, never land when unfortunately deficits began to creep into our national practices.
That has to stop. On that I fully agree with the member and those opposite who talk about fighting the deficit. Every time one of them gets up they tell us: "We have been fighting the deficit". As I say, the facts are that the former Minister of Finance has added more red ink to the ledgers of Canadians than all of the other finance ministers in Canadian history, during six good years of the economy.
Mr. Speaker, before you say I am not speaking about Bill C-20, I would ask members to reject this bill for, among others, the following reasons.
It will effectively limit the access to a post-secondary education for many people. It maintains the freeze on the growth of the Established Programs Financing transfer payments until 1995. I am sure that many members have already dealt with those issues and I will not reiterate what has been said.
The Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act of 1977 provides for federal support for health care and post-secondary education in two ways: transfers and
federal grants based on domestic productivity. In an attempt, albeit not a very good one, to make those EPF transfers equitable to all regions the value of the tax transfers was fully equalized.
It is estimated that the EPF entitlements for 1991-92 will top $20.4 billion, according to the National Council of Welfare. It seems like a lot, an awful lot. However, if we look at the amount the federal government actually contributed to those programs in 1977-78, in 1991 dollars total EPF spending came to $16.4 billion. The 1990 budget froze all EPF entitlements for two years. After that the funding formula for federal grants was set at gross GNP minus 3 percentage points beginning in fiscal year 1992-93.
Now if that was not enough, the 1991 budget told us that the EPF freeze will remain in effect until 1994-95. This brings me to Bill C-20, a bill which legalizes this form of financial terrorism against the provinces and the ordinary people of Canada, the people who do not live in Markham-at least as far as I understand the incomes of the people who live in Markham.
If the bill is passed and its provisions implemented, the federal government will be denying Canadians $97.6 billion worth of services and resources provided by health and post-secondary institutions until the year 2000.
This would have been paid out to the provinces if the growth rate had averaged 7.5 per cent a year and the Tory government had not decided to stick it to the provinces. Even more disturbing to health and educational groups such as the Canadian Federation of Students, the National Council of Welfare, and the Canadian Association of University Teachers is the value of the tax points turned over to the provinces. The value of those tax points will likely increase by 8 per cent a year since the Tory assault on the EPF began.
As cash transfers rise, federal contributions gradually become an afterthought, so much of an afterthought that by the year 2005 the federal government will no longer fund EPF programs directly, only through tax transfers. I say: "Shame".
The effect on post-secondary education has been staggering. Anybody who has attended university recently or helped pay for the higher education of a son or daughter knows that both the federal and most provincial governments have abdicated responsibilities in that regard.
June 17, 1991

Let me mention somebody who graduated from university only a year ago. When he enrolled as a freshman he paid roughly $1,500 for tuition and books. Four years later in 1990 he paid over $2,000 just to walk on campus in the final year. At the ripe age of 23 this person is in debt to Canada Student Loans for $11,000. That is just for a bachelor's degree. He, like the vast majority of other students, would not mind paying a higher price for higher education in Canada. The tuition hikes would ease over-crowding of classes, purchase more academic resources and personnel and pay for capital initiatives.
However, as we all know, the provinces have not seemed to take a very active interest in post-secondary education, a responsibility granted to them under the BNA act of 1867. Tuition hikes have by and large only covered the losses on annual provincial operating grant cuts.
Under the mandate of the tax transfers agreement the money raised is not ear-marked for post-secondary education. If the provinces had been spending what they were supposed to on higher education we would not have the situation today where so many universities and community colleges are understaffed and inadequately equipped.
We have had several commissions of inquiry including the McDonald inquiry and they have all called for the federal government to play a more active role to ensure a national standard of post-secondary education is met. Indeed, did not the throne speech speak about national standards.
In the age of globalization a renewed commitment to quality higher education has never been more important. Constitutionally the federal government could be well within its rights to undertake this because we are substantial contributors to the operating grants of postsecondary institutions and are therefore entrusted to ensure that the national interest and common good be served.
In my view post-secondary education is not merely another service to be paid for mostly out of tax dollars. It is about as important an investment as society can make. We only have to look at the economic miracles of the Pacific Rim where countries have invested enormous
Government Orders
sums of money in education and R and D. Those countries did not become economic powerhouses by accident. They made the initial investment and now it is paying off for them handsomely.
I say this for the benefit of my friends opposite who hold people on this side of the House in disdain for our supposedly irresponsible spending habits. It is well known that any economist can tell you that a society is only as good as its ability to compete. Look at Singapore. Look at Taiwan. Look at Japan. If there is anything that is going to get us out of this recession and out of this mundane cycle of booms and busts and into the realm of a truly prosperous society it will be a solid commitment to higher education with emphasis on quality and accessibility.
Recently I have been attending high school graduations in Edmonton. I have been asking myself where these young men and women, full of ability, energy and brains, are going to find the jobs, the careers that we need, they need, and the whole country needs. I hope it is clear that the federal government must not abdicate its responsibility for education and training.
What has this government opposite and its provincial counterparts done instead? They have cut, they have slashed, and-to speak figuratively-they have burned. In 1977 dollars general operating grants to universities and colleges have averaged $5,426 per a full-time student in 1978. In 1988 those grants averaged $4,492, in 1977 dollars, per full-time student according to Statistics Canada.
Why is it so hard for those opposite to understand why we cannot compete with many other global economies? Post-secondary education cannot be described only as a better future for our children. It is the key for a better future for our entire population. If we cannot have a strong economy, we cannot afford our social programs.
How do we get it across to those opposite that it is essential to have a strong economy before our pensioners, disabled communities and others will be able to get the social benefits they need. However, the Tories want to fritter away this responsibility just like they frittered away so many others.

June 17, 1991
Government Orders
Bill C-20 will ensure that the federal government has no way of maintaining national standards in higher education such as the Canada Health Act ensures that certain health standards are met. The quality of education will not remain the same in every region, I am sorry to say. In fact it is a sure bet, as the member for P.E.I. indicated earlier, that some provinces will have better standards than others; the wealthy provinces will have better standards than the poorer ones.
The provinces are ill-equipped to take on that responsibility with their current taxation bases and powers. If there were ever an attempt to destroy co-operative federalism, Bill C-20 will certainly help to get the job done. The former finance minister is not doing our country any favours with this bill. He is simply ensuring that Canada is reduced to a collection of 10 little fiefdoms to hog tax credits.
I would like to close with a scenario for those opposite. It is estimated that under the EPF funding formula this bill will usher in, health care and higher education will gradually become things of the past to the federal government.
According to the National Council of Welfare per capita EPF federal payments to the provinces will actually be below the initial amount paid out in 1978. By 1995, the federal transfers to provinces will equal $689 per person. In 1978 dollars, it equals $705. In short, it seems to me that this bill is an exercise in nation busting and harmful to Confederation.
I wish that some of those opposite would get up and defend the bill. How can our children be proud of a nation that does not care enough to provide satisfactory training and resources to help catapult our country into the big leagues of competitiveness. If the government insists on making higher education inaccessible to those without high income, so be it. Let us have the $15,000 annual tuition fees we see in the United States.
At the very least, quit the charade that the federal government is actually participating in a national strategy on post-secondary education.


Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to participate in the debate today and to put on record some of the views of my party and I, but not a pleasure because of the subject matter we have to speak on tonight.
We are debating Bill C-20, legislation to implement some of the budget items tabled in this House on
February 26. We are just now getting around to the legislation actually to implement some of those measures.
It is remarkable for people at home who are perhaps watching on television to see what a government can do with six pages. This legislation has six pages. It is remarkable just exactly how much a government can do to attempt to destroy what has been done to date and to tear apart much of what we have come to see in the country in terms of how our federal government has worked with the provinces in trying to develop both our post-secondary education and our health care systems which are major parts of this bill.
Part of the legislation amends another piece of legislation with a very lengthy title, but essentially it is legislation that lays out the fiscal arrangements by which the federal Government of Canada transfers funds to the provinces for both health and post-secondary education.
What we have learned through the budget and obviously the legislation to implement those measures is an ongoing withdrawal by this government from the field of helping Canadians in terms of health and education. It is clear that our universities, our colleges and our health care institutions are threatened by this government.
Why is it doing that? It is my belief-and I believe that a lot of Canadians feel this-that this government does not believe in health care. It does not believe in education in this country. The way we have attempted to achieve this has been through legislation by which the federal government shares with the provinces the funding for many of these important measures.
It is clear, if we take a look at any of the advanced economies in the world today, that those economies which have developed are those that have invested funds in education, post-secondary education, and have developed health care standards as a right.
It is clear that this legislation will give this government more of an opportunity to withdraw from that field than it has ever had before.
I ask why. Frankly it was a relief last week, I believe it was, when the finance ministers met in Charlottetown. I hope they had an opportunity to visit Province House, as I did once before, to see where Canada started. Maybe the Prime Minister, if he has not visited Province House, should go there and get a little dose of nation building. It is very sobering to be there and recognize where the
June 17, 1991

fathers and now the mothers of Confederation really started to talk about our country. It was a relief to hear for the first time in some time a finance minister-and I am talking about the finance minister from the great province of Ontario-speaking out for average Canadians, for people who need protection, for Canadians who need the health care and post-secondary education we are talking about to build a better Canada.
It was a relief because of the legions of Tory and Liberal finance ministers we have had to put up and listen to for the past number of years display their litany of ways in which to trash government, to trash some of the innovative programs that have been developed in this country. It was a relief to hear a finance minister talking about people and the kind of services that a government can deliver to people.
All we have to do is to look at that litany and that record, that tragic record we have had from previous governments, both Conservative and Liberal. I think in particular about the legislation we are dealing with right now, the legislation that talks about the transfer of funds to provinces for health and education.
I am thinking primarily of changes that were made in 1977 when we went to a block funding formula where the federal government in essence gave a blank cheque to the provinces to spend those transfer payments as they wished.
In my province-and I have mentioned this before in the House-there are many who alleged that Socreds paved highways with health and education dollars.
What is important is what should have been in this bill, what should have been part of Bill C-20, an amendment to the previous legislation that would have compelled the federal government to show clearly to Canadians that when it transfers its tax funds, our tax funds, Canadians' tax funds, to provinces to spend on health and education, that is where those funds are spent.
That is an important principle missing from this bill. It should have been in there. I would hope, certainly in the future, that whatever government it is will consider introducing legislation to that effect. That is the vehicle by which a federal government speaking for the nation, for the country, for all of its people, sits down and works with its provincial colleagues to develop the kind of
Government Orders
education and training programs that can ensure in our country we are a leader and we are entering the competitive world the new trade minister talks about and that we can have a revolution in the health care from the cradle to the grave. We need a cradle to the grave system of health care now more than we have ever needed it before. With this kind of legislation we are not going to have the opportunity to do that, be it this party that forms the government or obviously government members opposite who have no interest in doing this. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, if there is one piece of legislation that is the plank in the Tory destruction of Canada's social programs it is these six pages that we are debating tonight. It is frightening what this government can do in six quick pages.
I hope that the government members will see the light of day, vote against this legislation, and help us build good education and good health care in Canada.


Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, during the last election Liberals attempted to warn Canadians of what they could expect from another four years of Tory rule. Those predictions seem now rather prophetic as we have seen this government's decision manifest into the hardships that are being suffered by Canadians in 1991.
Before the House today is Bill C-20, the latest chapter in the Tory guide to social Darwinism. Medicare, postsecondary education and unemployment insurance were sources of hope for the poor and security for the middle class. Bill C-20 marks the end of that hope and security for so many Canadians.
Ironically, Canada is regarded as the last hope for medical refugees from the United States. We have all seen recently the U.S. congressional hearings which depicted the tragic circumstances of people whose children will die because they have been cut off by their insurance company and cannot afford the treatment their children need to stay alive. Canadians to date have been spared that kind of tragedy by a more humane system of health care that was established and improved upon by a series of Liberal governments over several decades.

June 17, 1991
Government Orders
This government has been relentless in its assault on the institutions that have benefited all Canadians and have in the past attracted so many people from around the world.
Recent ministers of health and welfare have tried to defend this government's underfunding of medicare by accusing the opposition of trying to frighten the elderly, the sick and the poor. It is the elderly who will have to worry about whether or not their local medical establishments will have the funds to provide the constant care they need. It is the sick who have to spend several days on stretchers waiting for one of the few beds not already closed for lack of funds, it is the poor who cannot escape the waiting list for cardiac surgery by travelling to the United States and paying for treatment out of their own pockets.
For many of these people it is too late to be frightened. They put their trust in this government only to find that their trust has fuelled their own misfortune. Many of these Canadians now feel that in 1988 when they buried their ballots in the box they put medicare on death row.
The ministers of this government have tried to relate their financial decisions to those of ordinary homemakers. I know, however, of few homemakers who would not spend whatever money was necessary to buy medicine for their children. I know of few parents who would not take time off work to take their child to hospital. I suspect that few, if any, homemakers would cancel their health insurance, disability insurance or dental plan to take out frivolous ads in newspapers. This government will underfund medicare by another $338 million this year, but it is determined to spend $3 billion on advertising, public relations and consulting.
This government is spending money on cosmetics to hide the scars of budget cuts. Canadians know that if it is a choice between your health and this government's image, the ad agencies always win out.
This is hardly, as this regime claims, putting Canada's finances in order. The excuse for cuts is always the deficit. But the deficit never goes down. It is $12 billion higher this year than the former Tory finance minister predicted in 1985.
If you are looking for answers, look no further then the unemployment rate. We have 1.5 million unemployed. This government's response to high unemployment is to put an even greater burden on employers and workers by increasing the UI premiums. They have made it even more difficult for small business to maintain their work forces.
We all remember the Prime Minister saying in the last election that the best social program is a job. Canadians now realize that their best social program is taking away the Prime Minister's job. For those who are looking to universities and colleges to improve their job opportunities, this government has erected new financial barriers. Tuition fees are being propelled upwards by Tory cuts to transfer payments. There is a new student loan surtax and the GST was slapped on to books, perhaps to discourage Canadian students from reading about our inefficient tax collection system that squanders billions of dollars year after year.
If the Tory student loan surtax remains and Canadian tuition fees continue to rise at their current rate, it will not be long before the poor and middle-class Canadians will face the same despair as the millions of Americans who cannot afford to become qualified and employable.
Indeed, this government's concept of order has bankrupted countless Canadians. These Canadians are financially bankrupt because this government is morally bankrupt. It would rather spend public money on its image than on the essential needs of ordinary people.
Nearly every institution that is distinctively Canadian has been under attack by this government, from the pillars of our social structure, medicare, education, unemployment insurance, to Via Rail, CBC, Air Canada, Petro Canada and Canada Post. Everything is up for sale.
Bill C-20 is not a defence of the Canada Health Act. With each passing moment, the federal government's commitment to health, education and jobs continues to dwindle under the guise of fiscal restraint and economic impetus. The Tories are meticulously plotting a course set forth by the free trade agreement. Bill C-20 is simply another example of how the Tories' sacred trust has been foreclosed.

It is rather like a cruel parent, starving the child and then discussing punishment when the child shows signs of malnutrition. Canadians now realize that if the institutions of medicare, post-secondary education and unemployment insurance are to be salvaged, this government must not survive.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, I am grateful this evening for the opportunity to say a few words about Bill C-20 which, as others before me have explained, is a bill to amend certain statutes in order to implement the February 26 budget.
The bill extends the limits of federal transfers to the provinces under the Established Programs Financing Act introduced in last year's budget for another three years to fiscal 1994-95. The bill amends the Public Utilities Income Tkx Transfer Act in order to restrict payments to provinces for certain privately-owned public utilities. And the bill amends the Unemployment Insurance Act to provide for an increase in premium rates. It is easy to be confused by the technical language in the statutes cited, unless one strips away the legalese to get down to the bare bones of what this government is actually doing with this legislation.
What this government is doing with Bill C-21, and with its misguided February budget, is asking the poor, the sick, the unemployed, the university students, the weaker regions of this country to pay for its colossal fiscal mismanagement.
Bill C-20 is a betrayal. It is a betrayal to the commitment by this government to workers and employers not to increase UI premiums until 1992 and to assist with the cost of the UI program in difficult economic times. This commitment was made as recently as the budget of 1989 and the legislation Bill C-21, which modified the UI program.
Instead, with this bill, the Minister of Finance jacks up UI premiums a full 24 per cent, in the middle of its own made-in-Canada recession. This premium increase is a direct tax on jobs and will increase the already too high unemployment rate.
Bill C-20, is a betrayal of this government's commitment to higher education, a commitment that was made as recently as the last throne speech, a commitment it
Government Orders
says is vital to making Canada internationally competitive in a global economy.
This bill is a betrayal to universal medicare and national health standards. It is a betrayal to the form of co-operative federalism that has made our national health care system work.
What the government is doing with Bill C-20 is withdrawing large sums of federal support to provincial governments for post-secondary education and health. The minister of health earlier today claimed that the government was only slowing down the increase in these payments over the next three years.
Schedule VI of the recent Nova Scotia budget tells a different story. Estimated federal transfers under the Established Programs Financing component of the Nova Scotia budget are expected to fall from $351.9 million in
1989-90 to $331.3 million in 1991-92, a decline of nearly $21 million.
From fiscal 1982 to fiscal 1994-95, the cumulative impact of these transfers is expected to reach $1.5 billion. The provincial budget states, and I quote:
Declining financial support from the federal government for
programs and services in Nova Scotia has placed increasing pressure
on provincial own-source revenues to make up the shortfall.
As a consequence, this year's budget has continued the practice begun last year of cutting back on basic health services to Nova Scotians, limited growth in programs, including health education and social services to 2 per cent; lowering the age limit on dental insurance for children; reducing the permitted frequency of eye examination coverage; closing and consolidating schools; raising the cost of seniors' drugs from $3 to 20 per cent on each prescription.
We can and we do argue with the government of Nova Scotia about its spending priorities. We can disagree and we do with its targets for lowering its own deficit. We know that the provincial government in the last 10 years has mismanaged its own finances. But we cannot argue with the fact that the cutbacks in provincial transfers which this bill will authorize will translate into lower basic services for those who need them most.
Indeed, the National Council of Welfare in its report on funding for health and higher education, appropriately called Danger Looming, has suggested that the federal government's plan to extend the freeze on Established Programs Financing could mean the end of medicare as a national program within five or six years. As the govern-

June 17, 1991
Government Orders
ment withdraws its financial commitment to national health care standards under the National Health Act, it reduces its coverage, it reduces its leverage on provinces to encourage compliance with the basic medical principles of accessibility, comprehensiveness and portability. It undermines the very foundation of a program which has been a source of pride for all Canadians: our universal health care system.
The government says not to fear. Although it is taking away the carrot of federal transfers to provincial governments to encourage their compliance with the National Health Act, with Bill C-20 it is giving itself a big stick. This bill will allow the government to punish a province which attempts to resolve its fiscal difficulties by eroding its own health care services, difficulties which in the poor provinces such as Nova Scotia are being caused by the cutbacks in the federal transfers by this government. What this bill will do is to punish that province by withdrawing federal payments under any act of Parliament or agreement with that province undertaken before or after this legislation. That is what section 23.(2) of Bill C-20 authorizes.
This astonishing provision will mean that the government will be able to attack transfer programs to provincial governments under the equalization payments formula, under territorial financing, under grants in lieu of taxes paid to provincial and municipal governments by the federal government instead of paying taxes on federal or diplomatic property. It will be able to cut into statutory subsidies, into federal-provincial agreements, into programs not related to national health care in order to impose its standards on provincial governments for programs which it is unwilling to finance itself.
At a time when we are facing increasing tensions between the federal and provincial governments, a provision such as this is a red flag, it is an act of federal-provincial war by the federal government on provinces. It is absolutely incompatible with any attempt by a provincial government to try to provide a comprehensive or co-operative federalism in an age in which we need co-operation between federal and provincial governments on basic services.
What it will also mean is that the poor will pay twice. They will pay through the reduction in the federal transfers to provincial governments designed to pay for
the services that they consume and they will pay through the discipline which the federal government will impose on those provincial governments which cannot pay for these services out of their own resources.
This is a terrible bill. It is a bill which all members of this House should denounce, including those on the government side, and which should begin a correction in a wrong-headed fiscal stance by this government and a restoration of sanity and co-operation in the management of our nation's finances.


Mr. Jerry Pickard (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak today on Bill C-20, although there is not much pleasure in the bill itself. As I stop and think about it, it is a bill that is going to very much restrict funding and post-secondary education by the federal government, it will have drastic effects on health care, again by contributions of the federal government, and it certainly is bringing a burden on the unemployed and increased premiums to employers here in Canada.
I have to stop and think, how did we really get where we are at today?
The Conservative government was elected in 1984 with all kinds of promises. We heard promises to reduce the deficit and promises to bring our financial picture in line. Seven budgets later, we are in a position where, basically, we have increased taxes 81 per cent plus the GST. We have increased expenditures almost 50 per cent. We have a deficit that is well over 100 per cent greater today than seven budgets before. We have some 30-odd tax increases plus the GST.
I heard members on the other side of the House say: "It was because of the Liberal government". There is a time when some people must accept responsibility. Eight years of Tory reign and no responsibility is pretty sad in this country. But we have arrived because of a supposed group that has abilities in business. They have really come down to the point of, financially, putting this country in very difficult straits.
When the government talks about 40 cents out of every dollar being used to pay the debt, it is the debt that it built. It is the debt that it has incurred over the seven budgets. Mr. Wilson is so far away from his projected targets he gave in 1984, it is absolutely ridiculous in this country.

However, it is interesting to look at Bill C-20 today under that light because it is the first time, the second time, the third or maybe the fifth, well, numerous times this government has not been able to deal with reality. It has, this time, totally abdicated responsibility in health care, responsibility in post-secondary education and responsibility in unemployment. It is now turning it over to other people to manage. It increased taxes by 80 per cent and it is now turning over everything to the provinces, to businesses and to individuals to pay those debts.
What does Bill C-20 mean to the people from my riding in Essex-Kent? Well, certainly, it means on the surface that many students who really desire to go on to higher levels of education will not be able to do so. I think of my children, I think of the children of every member in this House, I think of the children of every person in Canada, their opportunities at post-secondary education are restricted drastically by this bill.
What it means to universities is that, unless the provinces pick up extra payments, there is absolutely no way they will be able to continue the service that they are presently giving.
What does it mean to health care? It means that many lower income families, many seniors, many others across this country are going to have to stop and think: "can I afford the medical costs that I may have to incur". It is going to separate a society of those with funds to be able to pay the health care system and not worry about the extra cost to the doctor, and the weaker part of our society.
This government supposedly presents itself as a caring group who is running a very caring society. Well this is just exactly opposite to what that caring society means.
Post-secondary education, health care and unemployment have traditionally in this country been strong, Liberal policies and the Tory government have tom them down.
As I stop and think, my colleagues from the New Democratic Party have criticized the Liberal Party, however, they never once said or brought the real point forward, that these are Liberal policies, policies which Liberal government after Liberal government after Lib-
Govemment Orders
eral government have encouraged in this country so that we can be a successful society.
The problem that I see right now is that we are on a course in which there really is no solution if we continue downstream.
The Prime Minister made it very clear that we must be highly educated. We must use science, research and development in order to gain the skills required to compete in the 1990s and beyond. How on earth does this Bill C-20 support that concept? It is just the exact opposite. It means the young people in my area, the young people across Canada, will not have those benefits.
When we stop and think about it, the government has put all of this under the guise of deficit reduction. As my colleague from Mississauga pointed out a little earlier, it is very important to understand that deficit reduction occurs when businesses are healthy, when the economy is running very well, when we have employment across the country.
What has the government done in order to resolve those problems? The GST, losing jobs in Canada. Free trade, losing jobs in Canada.
What have they done to make a healthier society? Increased the value of the dollar, increased interest rates to put the small businessman, who is the chief employer in this country, right to the wall. I have seen policy after policy after policy in the last seven years do nothing but tear the country down and tear the country apart.
Certainly, this measure, this bill C-20 goes further. It stops universality in programs. It tears our educational system right to the roots and it leaves us in a situation where we ask: "What next?"
I have to say that, as I have walked through my riding and walked through areas of Canada, solutions are coming from people. Let's have a new election.
It is very clear to me, the policies that are coming down right now are certainly unpopular, are certainly not ones that are acceptable to the Canadian public. I would ask this government to change the direction, look at the prosperity of the country, look at how we can compete, how we can survive and not divide Canada further.

June 17, 1991
Government Orders


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that there is no doubt in my mind that when this bill comes up for my vote it is not going to get it, in case there is any doubt in anybody's mind.
I will tell you why. I have had very little difficulty in making up my mind on this. I want to explain to people just what is this disgusting, despicable Bill C-20 that everybody is talking about tonight? What does it do? How can one bill do so much damage to upset so many people? How can it?
It is very inoffensive. To describe it, it says: "Bill C-20, an act to amend certain statutes to implement the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26, 1991". Aha, the budget of February 26, 1991.
It says it is going to amend certain statutes. There are two statutes which bother me, and I want to talk to them this evening.
The first one is the statute entitled the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act and the second one is the Unemployment Insurance Act.
I want to take a mythical couple in my riding. I can either put them at one end of the riding in Old Perlican, Grates Cove or Bay de Verde, beautiful little fishing villages in one end of my riding, or I can put them in the other end of my riding, the north end of my riding, up in Wesleyville, Valleyfield, Brookfield, Lumsden, Newtown, Templeman. I can put them in any of these places.
Let us take a couple and apply Bill C-20 to them and see how it is going to affect them. I want to say at the very beginning these are the people who in 1988, when I was going around campaigning with my opponents and other members of other parties, were listening to what we had to say. They were hearing the then sitting member from the party across the floor, the government party, saying: "Don't worry, be happy. Do not worry about all of this free trade business, this fear-mongering that Mifflin and his crowd are doing because nothing is going to happen to unemployment insurance. Mr. Cros-bie and the Prime Minister have given their word that nothing is going to happen. It is in the newspapers. Do not worry about that. Do not listen to those scare-mongers. When they say if you vote for this government and this free trade business, you are going to find yourself in a position where your credit card will be checked before your pulse is checked".
I never said that myself but that term was being used. I thought it was rather scary. Some people were saying that it would never happen, that it was scare-mongering and that no government would ever do that to its people. They said: "We have a system that if it was not there we would try to invent it. So because we have it we would not dare, even contemplate, getting rid of it".
The cost of education came up. There was no direct relationship between what was happening and the present cost of education but I think people, even then in 1988, knew that the cost of education would certainly not decrease and in all likelihood, as everything else had in the past four years, it would probably go up.
I want to mention the couples again in either end of my riding, put them in their mid-40s, give them three or four children, they are a working couple. Here is how I think it will affect them. I have to go back now and describe what this means in terms of money to the province I represent, the province of Newfoundland.
We do not have a very large budget in Newfoundland. The point is that half of that budget comes from the federal transfer payments in one way or another. We are very grateful to the government for that, I am not suggesting that we are ungrateful people. However, when practically half your budget comes from a certain source and that source has been cut dramatically then you are in trouble, particularly as it affects the three areas of unemployment insurance, post-secondary education-university education in other words-and health.
What can be more important to people of all ages?
In 1990 there was an announcement in the budget of that particular year that there would be a two-year freeze in federal transfer payments and that this freeze would cost Newfoundland $19 million in 1990 and $34 million in 1991-1992. That announcement was just last year. Nothing else had happened. That is what it would cost the province of Newfoundland.
In the last federal budget-and this is what we are talking about now, the effect that Bill C-20 has-the freeze was extended for another three years. If you take this freeze plus the freeze before, plus all the other freezes of the federal transfer payments and all the other various transfers to the province of Newfoundland, in the past six years since this government has been in power it will have cost Newfoundland a half a billion dollars by the end of 1992. In 1991-1992, this fiscal year alone, it will cost Newfoundland about $150 million. That is shameful. This is a very serious matter.

I have talked in general terms about the cost of education. What is our future in this country if we cannot afford to educate our children? What is the future? We know now we are behind the eight ball. We are behind the curve when it comes to the Europeans and the Japanese. We do not have our people educated properly. We are not going to improve the situation by increasing the cost of tuition, which is one of the results of Bill C-20, which we are going to effect this evening.
Let me talk about health right now.


Gérard (Gerry) Weiner: How is your health?


Fred J. Mifflin: My health is fine, how is yours? I expect it won't be as good after this vote is over, I can assure you. Here is what is happening to health. Whatever we have now, 15 years from now, if you look at this, we are not going to have anything left.
Mr. Speaker, I am going to take you to this couple again. There is in one end of my riding a hospital called the Wilkinson Hospital. It is a very adequate hospital and the couple visit, their children visit when they are not in university and paying the higher tuitions, and usually they have mothers and fathers and they visit as well.
Mr. Speaker, you are cutting me off a little early, I think. As a result of these cuts that hospital's services have been reduced, and the same for the hospital at the other end of the riding, the Brookfield Hospital near Wesleyville. Now, instead of going to those local hospitals, they have to get in their car and drive for one to two hours in all kinds of weather. It is extra inconvenience, extra gas, extra everything.
Those are the two points. The third point is that the individual was told that he would not have to pay any more in unemployment insurance. In those days he was paying $1.95 for each hundred dollars earned. He is now paying $2.80. That is an increase of 50 per cent, that is 50 per cent more. That does not sound like very much when you talk about 85 cents or 95 cents, but if you add that up plus what the employer is going to pay, which has gone from $2.73 to $3.92 per hundred dollars, it adds up to $2 billion-$2 billion.
Where is the fairness in that? In 1985 this same government said: "We don't want to increase by 11 per cent because it might hurt the economy, it may hurt
Government Orders
small business", at a time when the economy was booming. Now when we are in the middle of a recession, the economy is far from booming and this government doesn't mind increasing 24 per cent from last year and 50 per cent from the year before".
Where is the fairness? Where is the consistency? Where is the heart? Where is the heart?
I would like to finish on a positive note, if I can. If there is anything that I will have done with great gusto it is, when the time comes to vote on this despicable bill-and I can assure you that I will be joined with great glee and enthusiasm by my colleagues-to say no, no, no to this bill.


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 the motion standing in the name of Mr. Sobeski. 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 yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.
And the 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. Accordingly, pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a) the division on the question now before the House stands deferred until tomorrow at three o'clock p.m. at which time the bells to call in the members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.

Adjournment Debate


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: To correct the record you mentioned the government Whip but he is not here. It was the opposition Whip who asked that the vote be deferred.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: You are much better looking than the government Whip anyway.
It being ten o'clock, in accordance with Standing Order 38 a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been made.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

David Walker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to raise a very important matter on behalf of not only people in Winnipeg and Manitoba, but across this country.
Last week I had the opportunity to raise in this House the question of federal funding for the Mother Earth's People's International Pow-Wow. It may appear at first glance as being just another opposition politician looking for money for another group in his constituency. However, we are going through a transformation right now in the aboriginal community which is very, very important for all Canadians to understand, particularly all members of this House. They have come in times of desperate need and, in many ways because of poverty, unemployment, housing and welfare issues, are still in times of tremendous need.
There is a transformation among the leadership which is permeating the youth of this country, making them a much more positive force in our society than any of us would have seen five years ago.
Last week we saw the election of a new Chief of the Grand Council for Canada for the Assembly of First Nations, a chief who will represent the aboriginal peoples of this country in a fine fashion. He will negotiate in good honour on behalf of his people.
Immediately after that, the aboriginal cultural society held the pow-wow which I was very proud to attend. It was held at the Convention Centre in Winnipeg over the weekend and it attracted thousands of participants from across North America and some other continents. It was also an event attended by thousands of people from around Manitoba.
In seeking funding, and the Assembly of First Nations was very modest in its proposals, not only does the federal government not fund it, which is the choice of any government, but the federal government refused to meet it. The only response it received from the Department of the Secretary of State was a curt letter which said in part: "A project such as this would normally be eligible for funding under the social and cultural development component of the Native Citizen's Program. Unfortunately, as you probably know, this particular component was adversely affected by the budget and it was terminated as of April 1, 1990."
In other words, the sad fact is that the federal government no longer has space in its programming for the needs of aboriginal peoples in our cities.
Public servants, if they are so inclined cannot even find a method of supporting groups such as this. So here we have the sad spectre of the largest gathering in the city for a pow-wow, perhaps one of the largest pow-wows in the history of this country. We have a new minister responsible for constitutional negotiations in this country speaking in this House sometimes in eloquent terms about the need for greater aboriginal participation, and at the very moment when those two interests could have been brought together, the interest in favour of aboriginal peoples and the Constitution, and a chance to have participants get together, have a great time and share a culture, many of whom were sharing it for the first time, the federal government turned away from them and refused to even meet.
I rise here today to call upon the House to review the position of the federal government. I ask that the cabinet consider its position of not funding programs such as the Mother Earth's People's International Pow-wow and meet with it as soon as possible to arrange financing.
June 17, 1991


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to emphasize the successful initiative by the Aboriginal Cultural Society, which organized the Mother Earth's People's International Pow-wow, held in Winnipeg on June 14 and 16.

Nearly 500 chiefs from across Canada were reported to have participated in the pow-wow which featured a children's program, an arts and cultural show and elders' forum.
The organizers of this forum have approached the federal government for financial assistance and I am pleased to be able to report today that the hon. Robert de Cotret has approved assistance in the amount of $10,000.

The Aboriginal Cultural Society is to be commended for its efforts to reduce social tensions between natives and non-natives in Canada, especially at this critical moment in our history.
The government acknowledges that the issue of native constitutional reform has not been settled. It acknowledges, as the Prime Minister said, that much remains to be done.
Today, Mr. Speaker, we are faced with a number of serious challenges, as a nation. We are being called upon to help build a country that more accurately reflects what we are as a nation and what we hope to be.
Any reflection on Canada's future must include an analysis of the place of native people in our country and the fundamental role they have to play. The federal government intends to make them active participants in these discussions. Mr. Clark has discussed with native leaders how this could be achieved.

Consultation with, and participation of, aboriginal peoples in any process which will lead to a major change
Adjournment Debate
in their place in Canada is fundamental. This government would not seek to have the Constitution amended to define the role, place and rights of aboriginal peoples without having ensured that their views were heard and fully considered.
This government is committed to working to ensure that the Canada being built for the 21st century will include a new relationship with aboriginal people.


PASSES FOR CONVICTED PERSONS
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, further to a question asked on May 29, the National Parole Board and the Correctional Services of Canada have embarked on what many people believe is a very dangerous experiment by allowing a convicted serial rapist out into society on an escorted temporary absence.
Larry Takahashi is no ordinary criminal. He was once considered a model citizen until police came to question him in 1983. He had to be subdued with tear gas before the officers could arrest him.
Edmonton police estimated that during his trial in 1984 he was responsible for well over 100 sexual assaults. He was charged with 138 counts of sexual assault but after evidence was called on only 14 cases, the other victims were sent home and their cases were, in effect, dropped. He was sentenced to three consecutive life sentences on the 14 charges, plus an additional 73 years in prison.
Correctional Services of Canada and the National Parole Board are not as convinced of his threat to the public as are his victims, the judges and a battery of psychiatrists which has him pronounced a danger.
He has been granted escorted temporary absences from Mountain Prison in Aggasiz, B.C., on a monthly basis since July 1989,1 understand. On several occasions he and a convicted murderer played a nine-hole round of golf at a nearby country club with only one unarmed escort in tow, more of a caddy than an escort.
Because the Solicitor General appears to be more committed to rehabilitating criminals, and we all believe in that, he seemed to dissociate himself from his responsibilities as Canada's top law enforcement officer.


Adjournment Debate
It was not until May 31 that he agreed to an immediate review of Mr. Thkahashi's pass privileges. The National Parole Board issues absence permits for those serving life or indeterminate sentences, the violent career criminals. In 1988-89, the Solicitor General's department's annual report revealed the National Parole Board received 311 applications for temporary absences from these types of convicts. A total of 277, or 89.1 per cent of the applications were approved.
Absence permits are officially granted on three grounds: compassionate leave, the funeral of a family member; family contact for special events and occasional exposure to the community; and administrative leave, court appearances. I do not believe a round of golf would meet any of those criteria. Does anyone?
Any review of Takahashi's absence privileges should include a psychiatric assessment by the same team of doctors that examined him prior to sentencing in 1984. In the team was Dr. Herbert Pascoe, a renowned psychiatrist who has helped set standards in the assessment of criminal minds. He described Mr. Takahashi as a unique sex offender: "Cunning, calculating, highly intelligent who terrorized women for sport where most rapists are motivated by vengeance or primordial satisfaction."
If Dr. Pascoe concludes that Thkahashi's criminal disorder has subsided to the point where he does not pose an unreasonable threat to women, people might be convinced that he should receive strictly controlled pass privileges. Until then, public safety is unreasonably at risk with Takahashi on the loose for whatever reason.
There are instances when a violent offender has convinced the entire judicial establishment dealing with his case that he is a dangerous person with little hope rehabilitation. In dealing with these people, the Solicitor General is primarily responsible for protecting law-abiding citizens from convicted offenders. In the case of Larry Takahashi, it would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, and I think to your constituents and to all of our constituents, the Solicitor General has ignored that responsibility.
Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic
Canada Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member opposite for Edmonton Southeast, I also share his concern about the inmate that we have been talking about because he is housed in my riding at present and has resided there for I am not just sure how many years and the escorted leave that he was on was in my riding as well.
I might add that the protection of Canadian society is the highest priority of the Solicitor General, the Commissioner and staff of Corrections Canada. However, in Canada, as in most western countries, judges' sentences lead to an eventual return to society for the majority of inmates.
To facilitate this inevitable return, the Correctional Service of Canada and the National Parole Board have developed a gradual, controlled and supervised release program for releasing inmates into the community. Risk is the prime criteria in any decision they make concerning the release of offenders. After discussions with the Solicitor General, the Commissioner of Corrections Canada directed that an independent review of Mr. Takahashi's case be conducted by an independent forensic psychiatrist. The result of this review will be provided to the National Parole Board for consideration in any subsequent Parole Board reviews.
At the present time, I am advised that Mr. Tikahashi is not receiving further escorted temporary absences.


TAXATION
Giuseppe (Joseph) Volpe: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to a question I raised with the Minister of National Revenue on June 4, 1991, referring to the minister's admission that Canadians were grossly overtaxed, I just wanted to add a few more items perhaps for comment from the parliamentary secretary.
From 1984 to 1989, to bear witness and evidence to the fact that Canadians are being over-taxed, the government collected 66 per cent more on income taxes for a grand total of $25,457 billion while personal incomes during the first four years increased by only 36.5 per cent. In fact the amount of disposable income increased by only an average of 7.2 per cent per annum over those years.
June 17, 1991

At the same time, from 1984 to 1989, the government collected 34 per cent less in corporate taxes in 1989 than it did in 1984, while the corporate profits before taxes increased during the first four years to 41.2 per cent and, after taxes, by 54.4 per cent.
What those figures tell us is that from the point of view of competitiveness, corporate Canada should at least have been able to absorb the government's strategy or stated economic policies designed for greater competitiveness. Instead, what happened is that we saw the taxation increased and increased and, in fact, under this 1991 budget the government has indicated that it will raise an additional $1.4 billion in 1991-92 in tobacco taxes alone, a further $1.14 billion in 1992-93, a further $1.03 billion in 1993-94 and a further $980 million in 1994-95.
For all that kind of collection of taxes on that one item, tobacco, we do not have a government that has given us an indication of any kinds of programs that are going to deal with the health problems associated with greater tobacco consumption.
Yet, we have a government that says that what we need to do is to become more competitive. That same government, from 1984 to 1989, increased income taxes as a share of federal revenue by 9.03 per cent and it decreased corporate taxation by 34 per cent.
The minister responsible for that, former finance minister Michael Wilson, acknowledged that the tax reforms initiated in 1987 were "the wrong policy for the wrong time because what they did they did stimulate the economy" when the economy was already strong, thereby encouraging higher interest rates. The net impact of those interest rates, according to the member for Mississauga South, then chairman of the finance committee, was: "climbing interest rates represent a cash transfer by the government from the relatively poor to the relatively well off."
Yet, the government insists on shifting the burden of taxation, the burden of the deficit, the burden of the public debt and the burden of government expenditures on to the backs of ordinary Canadians' personal income. It should be looking for other solutions.
Adjournment Debate
The GST was not a solution. It is even a greater burden. The minister admitted as much. His department indicated that it grossed more than $400 million more than anticipated.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to respond to the hon. member opposite for Eglinton-Lawrence.
According to figures available from the OECD, Canada's total tax revenues of all levels of government represent about a third of the country's Gross Domestic Product, less than that in France, Germany, the United Kingdom and Italy.
Tkxes on corporations at 2.6 per cent of the GDP, and consumption and direct taxes at 13 per cent of GDP are roughly equivalent to those of the other G-7 countries.
The study by Global Economics gives the government high marks on its corporate tax changes. Specifically, it notes that: "On balance, the Tory corporate changes have tended to improve the efficiency of the tax system." As pointed out in the study, this has led to a "pattern of investment and economic activity that is more productive and conducive to economic growth and employment creation".
Furthermore, as the study notes, corporate income tax revenues have grown more slowly than those from other taxes, due to the decline in corporate profits which are
8.4	per cent lower in 1991-92 than they were in 1984-85. Despite this decline, corporate tax revenues have increased over this period by 17.3 per cent.
This increased revenue is a direct consequence of discretionary actions taken by this government to ensure that corporations contribute to our deficit-reduction efforts. These include the base broadening measures of tax reform and the imposition of the large corporation tax.
The Global Economics report also gave the government high marks for its sales tax reform initiatives, lb quote: "Over-all, however, on efficiency grounds, the government deserves high marks for finally getting rid of the outmoded manufacturing sales tax and introducing a modem consumption tax."

June 17, 1991
Adjournment Debate
An integral part of the introduction of the goods and services tax was the enrichment of the sales tax credit to ensure that lower-income Canadians were better off as a result of the reform.
While this has meant an increase in revenues, this has been done in a fair and equitable way. Measures such as the surtax on high-income earners and the alternative minimum tax ensure that high-income Canadians pay their fair share.


PORT OF HALIFAX
Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, once more I rise to speak on the incredibly important and incredibly crucial matter of assistance from the federal government to the port of Halifax.
I am delighted to see the hon. member for Calgary Southeast who I presume is going to respond to this. Perhaps, I may be overly anticipating the hon. member in his reply, but I would like to put paid to the rumour here and now that the problems in the port of Halifax with most particular reference to the problems of container traffic and the weighing anchor of container companies away from Halifax to Montreal and other points is due to increased tonnage in the area.
This is something that I suspect was invented first by the Minister of Fisheries, has been picked up by the Minister of Transport, by the Associate Minister of Transport and most lately, by the Deputy Prime Minister in response to a question last week.
The president of the last container company to leave Halifax said explicitly and directly when asked: "Why are you going?", "The reasons are twofold: The first and foremost reason was the problem of freight rates between Halifax and Montreal. They were just not competitive." Consequently, we were losing business either to Montreal, within Canada or to the eastern ports of the United States, most of which interestingly enough are serviced by a railroad owned by Canadian Pacific which is, in itself, heavily subsidized and has been over the years by the federal government. The second problem cited by the president of that container company was the unfair tax structure yet again.
We do not ask for a great deal. We do ask for some action. We have asked for years that something be done
about the freight rates that are charged between Halifax and central Canada. We have asked again and again and again. What response have we received? One of the responses that we received is Bill C-ll, and in its former incarnation Bill C-26, the cancellation of the At and East grain subsidy. This is not the response that Haligonians and Nova Scotians are looking for. We are looking for some true action on the part of this government.
Four-and-a-half weeks ago in this House, the Minister of Transport told me, and I quote, as I quoted before, that he would: "do everything in his power to help the port of Halifax". On Friday last, the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada said: "We take this seriously. We take it as seriously as the member from Halifax does, and we are going to do something".
Several weeks ago I questioned the Associate Minister of Transport, and she, too, said something will be done. Sadly, what those comments remind me of, and what they remind Haligonians who have a sense of history of, were the words of the then King of England, Edward VIII, when he visited the coal fields in Wales and saw the unemployment. He said: "Something must be done".
What he did two weeks later was abdicate his responsibility. This government is abdicating its responsibility in and to the people of Halifax. Something has to be done, not mere words, not fine phrases. Assistance is needed and assistance is needed now for the Port of Halifax and for the people of Halifax.


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of TVansport):: Mr. Speaker, I thank again the member from Halifax, who has been most diligent in the pressing of this issue before the House.
As we have said before, the present difficulty facing the port of Halifax is the product of a host of economic factors, most of which are international in scope and largely beyond the power of any Canadian entity to solve. The focus for the majority of the problems lies within the international container shipping sphere, which has excess capacity everywhere. Reductions in importations have precipitated an excess of transportation supply over demand of over 30 per cent in some trades, the most prominent being the European-Canadian sector.
International shipping lines have had to cut operational costs and to make other commercial adjustments in an extremely tight market. It must be remembered, howev-
June 17, 1991

er, that such ebbs and flows are part of the normal cycle of international business and reflect the market economy of world shipping. What is more difficult to accept is the degree to which these business cycles impact upon the interface operations, in this case, Canadian ports and railways.
It has been estimated that the portending departure of Hapag Lloyd from the port of Halifax will cause a short-term loss to the port of between 40,000 and 50,000 20-foot equivalent units, which is a standard container measurement. While this level, which represents some 12 per cent of the port's container tonnage, must be seen as significant, it should be recalled that, between the years of 1980 and 1982, an even larger amount was lost to the port, only to be quickly regained and increased during the recovery period which followed.
This government knows that all those with interest in the port and the Canadian routes must work together to produce a long-term, system-wide approach to intermodal traffic so as to keep our ports competitive. What is needed is the help of all parties to produce a comprehensive and efficient package of intermodal services.
In the longer term, in order to ensure the continued competitiveness of our Canadian ports and routes in a dynamic and difficult market, all parties may need to develop strategic alliances in order to create a competitive position for Canadian ports, and for Halifax in particular. The department is currently listening to what those interested parties have to say and I can assure you that full consideration will be given toward identifying and implementing an appropriate long-term response.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, on June 3,1 rose in the House and asked a question of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans regarding the need for a full environmental assessment of the Alcan project, as ordered on May 16 by the Federal Court of Canada. On that day, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans suggested that the matter was under review and that an announcement would be made within a reasonable time as to what kind of action the government was going to propose.
The details and concerns that people have had over this project have been fairly well documented, in particular by reports now coming out from retired Department
Adjournment Debate
of Fisheries and Oceans scientists whose reports and information that had been released show there is considerable concern over the fish habitat of the Nechako and eventually the Fraser River and many other concerns related thereto, the main problem being the reduced flows due to the Alcan project. I would like to quote from the decision on May 16 in the Federal Court because I think it says most clearly what this government should do and what we hope the parliamentary secretary will be able to announce tonight. I am quoting from the decision:
I conclude that the Kemano II Completion Project requires an assessment by virtue of the Environmental Assessment Review Process and that the Ministers involved and specifically the Minister of the Environment were under an obligation to arrange for it and not frustrate this by the Settlement Agreement signed in 1987 and finally by the Order of the Minister, confirmed by Order in Council-
That was passed late last year. Most important:
It is not sufficient to be satisfied with the review, however extensive, performed by the Proponent of a proposal, even in co-operation with the Ministers involved, without a public assessment by an independent panel at which all interested parties may be heard.
It is very clear in the decision what the judge in this case was suggesting. He has thrown out the original Nechako settlement agreement and in particular makes reference to the Order in Council exempting this project from an environmental assessment.
I hope the parliamentary secretary will announce two things tonight: notwithstanding the company's decision on Friday to appeal this decision, an announcement as to the government's intention in that regard and, regarding that, a decision by this government to announce a full environmental assessment of the Alcan project.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member opposite from Prince George-Bulkley Valley and in reply also to a similar question that was asked on June 3,1991,1 am pleased to provide additional historical information on this matter.
By the late 1970s, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had become concerned that reduced flows being released by Alcan from the first Kemano Project built in the 1950s could endanger the Chinook and sockeye salmon populations in the Nechako and Stuart Rivers in British Columbia. The department therefore obtained an injunction requiring Alcan to release more water than

June 17, 1991
Adjournment Debate
it was obligated to do under the 1950 British Columbia Water licence.
When Alcan proposed the second project, the Kema-no Completion Project in the early 1980s, and also sought relief in court from the injunction, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans entered into a settlement agreement with British Columbia and Alcan in order to secure longer term protection for the fish stocks. The agreement formalized the release of flows to protect fisheries and required Alcan to provide measures to mitigate the potential impacts on fish and fish habitat.
Before the minister entered into the agreement the department conducted considerable analysis of the potential impacts of the proposed Kemano completion project. The agreement was reached after an independent review panel chaired by the president of the University of British Columbia advised that fisheries experts agreed that impacts on the fisheries could be mitigated. The department applied the principles of its policy for the management of fish habitat providing for no net loss of fish habitat and responsible resource
management. In particular the agreement called for a mechanism to ensure that impacts on fish and fish habitat could be mitigated on an ongoing basis. Therefore, if an issue arises that was not initially thought to be a problem, there is a process in place designed specifically to deal with it.
We can see that the settlement agreement was entered into with consideration for potential impact. They were in fact considered extensively. In the understanding of the day when the settlement agreement was signed, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans took what he believed to be the-necessary and appropriate steps to ensure that the protection necessary for fish and fish habitat was provided.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Therefore, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, June 18, 1991