1992-03-19

[Stage Direction]
1991 PUBLIC REPORT
Hon. Doug Lewis (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages and under Standing Order 32(2), copies of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service public report for the year 1991.
I would ask that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General.


ORDER IN COUNCIL
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table, in both official languages, a nomination recently made by the government and, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(2), it is deemed referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, a year ago the government announced that the Solicitor General would begin in 1992 to make an annual statement to Parliament on national security.

I am pleased to deliver the first such statement today. [English]
In my remarks I want to address three dimensions of national security: first, the changing international environment; second, the security intelligence challenges that Canada faces in the current period of international transition; and, last, the government's firm commitment to safeguard fundamental liberties while assuring Canadians their security.
Canadians today are engaged in an important debate on our country's future. We have before us decisions on some of the most fundamental questions that people can ask themselves. We are privileged to have institutions such as this and traditions of public consultation which allow us to consider these questions in an informed and democratic way.
We are privileged in another respect as well. [Translation]
For the first time in a generation, we can consider our future without also having to worry about the cold war.

We have entered a new era in the affairs of nations. The cold war is over. The iron curtain is gone. The Soviet Union has disintegrated. Countries of central and eastern Europe are finding their own paths. It is a time of hope and expectation. Canadians share these hopes and we have pledged to do everything that we can to bring them to fulfilment.
But we know from history that periods of international transition are also periods of potential danger. In recent months the long list of regional conflicts has grown longer, with the outbreak of fighting in Yugoslavia and in parts of the old Soviet empire. Dictators still impose their will in many parts of the world, practising terrorism against their enemies and scheming to acquire even more sophisticated weapons.

Routine Proceedings
International competition for advanced technology, including weapons technology, continues unabated.

In brief, Canadians are right to judge the future to be more promising than the past.

While we hope for a brighter future, we have to take precautions against current and potential threats.
Our origins, our diverse population, and our national interest mean that we will continue to have important links with the world beyond our shores. In light of those changes that are taking place in the world, I have asked the director of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to prepare and submit to me an assessment of how the evolving security environment might affect the service's mandate over time.
The review will consider future security intelligence needs, examine how the service ought to be structured to meet those needs, and determine the resource implications of any measures that might be recommended.
I have instructed the director to be mindful of budget realities and the government's commitment to improving the efficiency of government operations. Canadians can be reassured that public safety will be the government's highest priority in the national security sector. We will continue to place a high priority on protecting democratic rights, freedoms and institutions; ensuring economic security; promoting international peace and security; and safeguarding those human intellectual and physical assets that the government manages in trust for the people of Canada. These priorities are long-standing.

The service's primary mandate is to investigate suspected threats to the security of Canada. These can take many forms, including espionage, terrorism and attempts by foreign governments to exert clandestine influence in Canada against Canadian interests.

The service also has a mandate to provide security assessments to departments and to provide security advice on applications for immigration and citizenship.
Last August an attempted coup in Moscow offered a pointed reminder of the fragility of democracy in Russia and eastern Europe and of the need to remain vigilant. Until the situation clarifies, we will be faced with many questions.
Will the former servants of Soviet imperialism be content to fade into obscurity? Elow will the new governments in the region use the offensive intelligence services that they have inherited? Will they restrict themselves to open sources, or will they engage in espionage? Will they target only neighbouring countries or more distant states such as Canada? Will governments that have inherited economies which have been devastated by decades of mismanagement use their intelligence sources to acquire other scientific and technical data?
In the meantime we know that governments elsewhere have continued to mount offensive intelligent collection efforts against us. High-tech industries, especially nuclear technology, appear to have been attractive targets. The proliferation of sophisticated weapons and delivery systems is a global concern. When the arsenals of dictators include chemical, bacteriological and perhaps even nuclear weapons, we cannot be complacent.
Clearly we will need a capacity to defend ourselves against foreign intelligence services as long as people are prepared to use deceit and deception to their advantage.
The political and economic discontent found in so many parts of the world has also had consequences for us which warrant close attention.

One such consequence has been terrorism.

Last year after a period of decline there was a resurgence of international terrorism, prompted in part by events in the Persian Gulf. Fortunately Canada has never been a target for terrorism the way some European states have been, but neither have we been immune.
March 19, 1992



Over the years, lives have been lost and injuries suffered. To deal with the problem, a national counterterrorism plan is in place.

It is consistently being updated to take into account the events of the day. The plan co-ordinates the efforts of all relevant departments and agencies, both federal and provincial. Despite these precautions, our first line of defence remains accurate and timely information about the activities of political terrorists.
A further consequence of international unrest has been the movement of millions of people seeking a safe haven and a more prosperous future. Many of them have come to Canada. A few of those new arrivals have sought to pursue their ancestral disputes by violent means, ignoring our peaceful and democratic political traditions. Canadians can be assured that measures are now in place to uncover those applicants for whom violence is a political option.
Meeting the challenges of the new international environment will test our national security and its institutions as never before. With the passage of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act in 1984, the government created CSIS to provide the government with information on threats to Canada's security. In companion legislation, the Security Offences Act, Parliament affirmed that the RCMP would retain primary responsibility for security related law enforcement and the protection of persons and property. Functions assigned to CSIS and the RCMP are distinct but complementary, and the two agencies have coped well with institutional change since 1984. The effectiveness of these measures was never more evident than during the gulf war last year.

CSIS and the RCMP worked hard to ensure that Canadians were spared from terrorist attacks.

I want also to talk about what will not change, and that is our regard for the fundamental rights and freedoms while we are assuring national security. Canadians ex-
Routine Proceedings
pect their security system to be effective. They also want to be assured that security will not be achieved at the expense of the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals.
Through the CSIS Act, Parliament ensured that both objectives would be met by the legislative and institutional arrangements it put in place. Parliament provided that CSIS could use its extraordinary powers of investigation only to the extent strictly necessary to perform its duties. The most intrusive powers could be used only after they have been approved by the Solicitor General and by the Federal Court of Canada.
Their use is also subject to review by the Inspector General of CSIS and by the Security Intelligence Review Committee. Control and accountability arrangements for CSIS include ministerial direction on a wide range of activities. These cover the services annual priorities, the operational methods, co-operative arrangements with domestic and foreign agencies and reporting requirements. Ministerial directions and approved operational policies are in place to ensure that investigations are pursued with due regard for the rights of individuals under investigation.
CSIS and the RCMP recognize and understand the central role of such measures in safeguarding fundamental rights and freedoms in Canadian society. This is because they share the essential values, principles and convictions of a nation united in respect for law, the rights of individuals and the collective well-being of all.
A few months ago the Prime Minister pointed out that there is no map to help chart the course of world peace in these changing times.

We have only our values, he said, and the hard-earned lessons of the past to go on.
[English \
I believe that Canada's national security system, so recently conceived and developed, reflects and embodies this nation's values and experiences in pursuit of the twin goals of security and liberty. I am confident that Canadians can continue to enjoy a degree of security and liberty that is and will remain the envy of the world.

March 19, 1992
Routine Proceedings


Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada to respond to the statement made by the minister.
Before I begin my substantive remarks, I want to take a moment to thank the minister personally for his courtesy in providing a copy of the report and a copy of his proposed remarks well in advance of 10.10 a.m. today so that I would have an opportunity to review them.
This is something that is much appreciated by myself, and it is something that is of course difficult for the minister because he must expect that I am going to be criticizing the remarks that he made on the report. He is not going to be disappointed. However having said that, I do appreciate the courtesy extended by the minister.
The minister began his remarks by saying that in 1991 he announced that he would make an annual statement to Parliament on national security. Today is an historic day in Canadian history because this is the first statement of its kind ever delivered to the House of Commons.
We have to ask ourselves, is this just something that the minister thought up on his own or was there something more behind it? Of course there was something more behind it, and I think it is important that Canadians know exactly what it is that, if I may put it this way, prompted the minister to bring in his report.
A special committee was struck by the House of Commons on June 27, 1990 and its mandate was to undertake a comprehensive review of the provisions and operations of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and report back to the House. It was a very comprehensive report entitled "In Flux but not in Crisis".
I want to pay specific tribute to the members of that committee, particularly the chairman, the hon. member for Lethbridge and two members from my party, the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River and the hon. member for Moncton. They worked very hard to come up with many, many recommendations. The hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River, my colleague, is also at the present time the vice-chairman of the subcommittee on national security and takes a particular interest in these issues.
This document produced 117 recommendations. For all intents and purposes, only one of those 117 recommendations was accepted in whole by the Solicitor General. That was number 47 which reads: "The committee recommends that the Solicitor General require the director of CSIS to provide the minister with an additional annual report that can be tabled in Parliament".
In the ministry response to those recommendations, entitled "On Course", the minister had the following to say. It is on the basis of the minister's own words that I will be commenting on the statement today: "The government agrees with the special committee that the annual release of a report on security intelligence matters which could be tabled in Parliament could contribute significantly to informed public debate.
Therefore at the time of tabling the main estimates, the Solicitor General will provide Parliament, beginning in 1992, with an annual statement on the national security issues that face our country. This statement will discuss the major national security issues that were dealt with during the previous year and highlight directions for the year ahead. The minister's statement will be accompanied by a public annual report from the director which will include a discussion of the threat environment."
It is on that basis I propose to examine both the report and the minister's statement today.
After listening to the minister, my first reaction was to remember that commercial of a few years ago where the lady is looking into the camera and shouts, "Where is the beef?" That is exactly the problem. There are many generalities but no specifics. Where is the beef in this statement and indeed in the report?
The minister said we must take precautions against current and potential threats. What threats? What precautions? They are not mentioned. He reminds us that Canadians can be reassured that public safety will remain the government's highest priority. Is public safety threatened? If not, is public safety likely to be threatened in the foreseeable future? If so, why? No answers.
March 19, 1992

Routine Proceedings
The minister refers to counter-espionage. He asked many questions concerning the intelligence service remnants of the fallen Soviet Union. But there are no answers.
He says without explanation that governments have continued to mount offensive intelligence collection efforts against us. But there is no further information. How does any of this contribute to informed public debate, which the minister told us his statements were going to do?
In referring to counter-terrorism he told us that there is a national counter-terrorism plan in place. Indeed that is reassuring. However, there is no mention whatsoever in his statement that the special emergency response team SERT, which is a branch of the RCMP and was specifically set up to deal with terrorist attacks, is being disbanded to be replaced by a group within the armed forces, no discussion that that has either occurred or is occurring smoothly and the armed forces are ready, willing and able to take over this responsibility. Is this contributing to informed public debate?
He refers to security screening. He says it is the job of CSIS to screen potential immigrants for violence and people who would ignore Canada's peaceful and democratic political traditions. There are no details of how this is being done. I might add there is no discussion how Mr. Al-Mashat, an ambassador of an enemy state, got past this screening.
Referring to the CSIS act itself, he reminds us that CSIS was created to provide government with information on threats to Canadian security. Has CSIS fulfilled its mandate? The minister does not say. Is this contributing to informed public debate?
He refers to human rights and the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals. Thankfully the minister reassures Canadians that these are being respected by CSIS.
We have to look at the following question. Does the minister's statement today fulfil his own promise as I read it a few moments ago? In my view and in the view of the Liberal Party, the answer must be a profound triple no.
First of all, does it contribute to informed public debate because there is little or no information provided, only many generalities and platitudes. Does it discuss the
major national security issues dealt with in the previous year as promised by the minister in writing? Absolutely not.
There is no mention even in the broadest terms of actions taken to protect Canadians prior to, during, and after the Persian Gulf War. There is no mention, even though security clearance of immigrants is a part of the mandate, of the Al-Mashat affair and the CSIS role or lack of role in it. There is no mention of the allegations that certain foreign intelligence services are operating clandestinely in Canada and what, if anything, CSIS did or is doing about it. The CSIS report itself contains no specific discussion of the "threat environment" in Canada as the minister promised that it would.
In conclusion, the Liberal Party recognizes that this is the first report of its kind in Canadian history and I have already applauded the mechanism by which this became the fact.
We also acknowledge the truism that a baby must crawl before it can walk. We call upon CSIS and the minister to ensure now that they can crawl, future annual statements and reports contain more information, as promised by the minister himself, so that Canadians can have an informed public debate, be aware of the national security issues which face our nation, consider the major national security issues which face our country from year to year and how we are to handle them.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I stand with mixed feelings this morning because the minister has just presented a statement to the House based on a report by a special committee of this House that had 117 recommendations, and as my friend has just said, this is the only recommendation in its entirety that has been really accepted.
Having listened to what the minister had to say this morning, I doubt very much whether our time was well spent, to say nothing of the minister's time, because there is virtually nothing in this statement that will enlighten or inform either Parliament or the Canadian public.
First of all, I want to refer to the preface of a document published about a year ago, February 1991 entitled On Course, National Security for the 1990s and signed by his predecessor the Hon. Pierre H. Cadieux.

March 19, 1992
Routine Proceedings
Toward the end of the preface of the introduction the former Solicitor General says: "But confidence in the system, that is the security system, can be improved by providing Parliament with more information on security issues".
All I can say this morning is that this statement by this minister is a profound disappointment. There is virtually nothing in here that will inform Parliament or the Canadian public on matters referring to intelligence and security.
I say that knowing full well there are certain matters in the intelligence and security system that cannot be divulged either to Parliament publicly or to the general public as a whole. Quite frankly most experts, most good books on the subject, will argue very forcefully that upwards of 80 per cent, to 90 per cent of the information that security and intelligence services have world-wide in democracies could be released to their legislatures, and through their legislatures to the public, without any diminution whatever in maintaining the security of those democratic countries.
I offer that to the minister. I hope that in his next report in a year's time if we are still sitting here-and I said if we are still sitting here-that he will come forward with a document that has more substance to it, that will clearly inform not only this side of the Elouse but his own members on matters of national security. Elaving said that, I want to get to the substance of my remarks which will be brief.
We in the New Democratic Party welcome this first of 117 recommendations made to the government by an all-party committee some two years ago.
As my hon. friend across has said in his ministerial statement on national security, the world has indeed changed in the last 24 months. But complacency still remains one of our worst enemies in the face of the very real threats of terrorism and industrial espionage.
This statement on national security and all others that will follow in the years to come must remain part of the process of government accountability as well as publicity.
A year ago the parliamentary Sub-committee on National Security was created and the first problem it confronted was disclosure, tight-lipped government officials hiding behind the argument of national security in order to dodge questions of accountability.
There is a way to keep our country safe, while at the same time preserving the fundamental principles of openness in a democracy. It has been done elsewhere and it can be done here.
This document is more interesting by what it omits than by what it contains. This government has the duty and obligation to disclose to the committee all arrangements made between CSIS and foreign countries.
What memoranda of understanding does CSIS have with its American counterpart, the FBI, or the National Security Agency through CSCE, or the CIA for that matter, or any other foreign intelligence agencies, namely Mossad, if there are in fact any memoranda of agreement or understanding with those agencies.
Does the government not know that foreign intelligence services are operating in Canada? The Victor Ostrovsky/Mossad affair is a case in point. Israeli intelligence officers entered Canada and intimidated a Canadian citizen, chased him around this city, followed him to Toronto and harassed him. Despite a dozen appeals by this citizen, CSIS took no direct action to protect this individual, or at least we do not know whether CSIS did or not. Only a municipal police force showed any willingness to assist him. All the government did was to slap an Israeli diplomat's wrist over the whole affair. This government must answer for this particular negligence.
We must also demand accountability on how the CSIS Act has affected us at home. Does CSIS share information about Canadians with Employment and Immigration, External Affairs or National Health and Welfare, to name only some departments?
Canadians know barely anything of the Canadian intelligence system through no fault of their own. What about the most secretive of all agencies, the Communications Security Establishment? There is not a single law that regulates it. What does it do, what powers does it have, whom does it serve, what method does it use to gather information, what is its budget, who makes sure
March 19, 1992

Routine Proceedings
that it operates legally? In other words, why is it there? On whom is it spying? Is it spying on Canadians indirectly through NSA to avoid Canadian law? And is the NSA spying on Americans through CSE to avoid American law? We do not know this. And yet we are a democracy. Again, it is part of a government that is too closed and too secretive.
The gulf war proved to us that law-abiding citizens in this country can still be intimidated by the force of government. A knock on the door late in the evening by CSIS officers, two hours of questioning, no rights explained, no one to turn to for help.
Allegations have been made that the Israeli intelligence service used the confusion and hysteria over the war to interrogate Canadians while posing as CSIS officers. The government has failed to reassure Canadians that this did not happen, nor that it can prevent it from happening again.
I include this allegation because that is precisely what Mossad did in Norway. In Norway the head of its security and intelligence system was fired as a result of it.
The Supreme Court of Canada recently demonstrated how senior bureaucrats and secret agencies still have total control over the security assessment of ordinary Canadians. CSIS looked into some 65,000 such requests last year alone.
According to the law, the Security Intelligence Review Committee, the public watch-dog and the only public watch-dog we have of CSIS, has no powers to overturn negative security clearance decisions for federal employees. How many honest Canadians did CSIS turn down? How many then realized there was no appeal process to turn to? What about their future job prospects?
The SIRC has done a good job on balance over its history, but it is pretty toothless. It is far too restricted by statute. Parliament recommended two years ago that this be changed. The government replied that there was no need to be alarmed, and nothing has been done about it.
I can recall the meetings we have had with SIRC members, putting questions to them. They make every effort they can to inform the committee, at least that is my impression. Yet we know that they are circumscribed, they are restricted, they are prevented from giving us the information we want as a subcommittee of this House and an elected body. The time has come, Mr. Speaker, and I say this through you to the minister, to put an end
to this, to take the Sub-Committee on National Security into the government's confidence. I can assure you that we will act in a responsible way.
The CSIS Act still needs to be amended. SIRC must be given more weight and influence in the appeals cases. It must be able to investigate the operations not only of CSIS, but of all government intelligence branches, from external affairs to defence, immigration and also CSE.
The Sub-Committee on National Security must be briefed on all arrangements made between CSIS, the RCMP, CSE and all countries with which we deal in the intelligence world. I am not asking for all of the minute details, but in general, what are those agreements and why? What are the purposes?
Above all, the public must know that someone somewhere is working to protect them from the secret intelligence machinery of government, any government, in this country.
Two years ago, we made 117 recommendations to change our policies and laws in the field of national security. So far, the government has implemented about one and one-half, perhaps two at the most.
The system is far from perfect. The government's attitude towards the whole issue needs to change now. It is its responsibility to listen to criticism, to implement recommendations and to account for its decisions. Otherwise, there will be no rights and privileges for CSIS to protect.
In conclusion, I am not satisfied with pious platitudes. This document could have been released a week ago and nobody would have ever dreamed of leaking it. There was nothing in there to leak. It is a profound disappointment, as I said at the outset.
I know the minister is acting on instructions from his senior bureaucrats in the security and intelligence field and that is a two-edged sword. I know that ministers have to take the best advice they can get, but I would hope that ministers would also exercise their independent judgment as well.
I also hope that this government will break out of this secrecy and inform the parliamentary Sub-Committee on National Security of a great many more facts relating to the activities of CSIS. In that way, we would then truly have the best arrangement in the free and democratic world.

March 19, 1992
Routine Proceedings PETITIONS


CRIMES OF VIOLENCE
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to present a petition today pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petition has been certified to be in its proper form and it has been signed by numerous Ontario residents of Kingston, Odessa, Newburgh and other communities in the vicinity.
The petitioners are concerned about violence in our society and they call upon Parliament to recognize that crimes of violence against persons are serious and abhorrent and they call upon this House to amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act and the Parole Act in order to minimize violence.


LABELLING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTAINERS
Ms. Dawn Black (New Westminster-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and present petitions that have been signed by 6,983 persons in British Columbia.
These petitioners ask the government to acknowledge that alcohol is a drug and that many people are unaware of the health risks posed by alcohol because it is so widely accepted in our society. This is especially true of pregnant women, many of whom do not even know that drinking may lead to birth defects. Alcohol consumption has also been linked to impairment of a person's ability to operate machinery or automobiles, to hypertension, liver disease, cancer and other addictions.
Warning labels on alcohol have already been put in place in other jurisdictions, including the Yukon and the United States. In fact, alcohol produced in Canada for export to the United States must be so labelled.
These petitioners ask that Parliament consider requiring labels on all alcoholic beverages to warn consumers, including pregnant women, of the health risks involved in the consumption of alcohol.
I would also like to pay tribute to the woman in B.C. who organized the petitions, my constituent, Joy Gilmore, who has worked very, very hard. I know that all members of Parliament in this House have heard from her on this issue.


TAXATION OF LONG DISTANCE TELEPHONE CALLS
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise under Standing Order 36 to present this petition signed almost exclusively by residents of Burns Lake, B.C. in my riding. Really it is a petition on behalf of all northerners in British Columbia.
The petition expresses concern on the additional cost by the taxation on long distance calls. People living in rural and northern communities are much more dependent on long distance telephone calls for services like health and information.
These petitioners call on Parliament to ensure that we have a fair tax system for northerners.


JAMES BAY II PROJECT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to present to the House, certified pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition signed by hundreds of Canadians who are concerned about Hydro Quebec's plans to proceed with the project known as James Bay II.
They are concerned that the project has not been subjected to a full federal environmental assessment review process and that the health, livelihood and culture of the Cree people of northern Quebec would be adversely affected if the project was allowed to proceed as proposed.
The petitioners therefore call upon Parliament to conduct a thorough and full environmental review of all portions of the James Bay II project that fall under federal jurisdiction.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 103, 210 and 222.
March 19, 1992


Mr. Holtmann: 1.	With respect to the Canadian consulate in Kiev, USSR (a) what is the status of credentials of the Consul-General (b) how many officers are there and what are their specific duties (c) what is the citizenship of each staff member (d) what is the operating budget for the Consulate?
2.	How do the staffing positions in Kiev compare to (a) other Canadian consulates (b) German, French and U.S. consulates in Kiev?


Hon. Barbara Jean McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The former Consulate General in Kiev was raised to the status of an embassy on January 27, 1992. It is accredited to Ukraine. There are currently three Canada-based officers at the embassy: a charge d'affaires, responsible for managing the embassy and for the political and trade programmes; an immigration officer, responsible for the visitor programme; and an administrative officer. The 15 locally-engaged staff members are Ukrainian citizens. The estimated operating budget for the embassy in the 1991-92 fiscal year is $220,000. not including salaries of Canada-based staff.
2.	The staffing level of the Consulate General was comparable with that of consulates in major European cities such as Munich, Dusseldorf, or Milan. It is now being expanded in connection with upgrading to embassy status. Plans call for 11 Canada-based staff members to be deployed in Kiev. The timing of their arrival will depend on the progress of chancery renovations and availability of housing. Locally-engaged staff will also be augmented. The staffing levels of the USA and French missions, previously two officers each are also being expanded. The German mission last year had a staff of 15.


Ms. Phinney: How many disabled persons are employed by the government?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the TVeasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: As of December 31, 1991, there were 6,480 self-identified persons with disabilities employed in active status under the Public Service Employment Act. Persons with disabilities are represented in all occupational categories: 91 per cent are indeterminate; slightly above 3 per cent work parttime, less than the Public Service-wide average of 3.5 per cent. Persons with disabilities represented 3 per cent of
Routine Proceedings
the Public Service in 1991 compared to 2.6 per cent in 1987.


Ms. Callbeck: What are the guidelines or terms of reference used by Canada
Post Corporation when deciding upon the closure of post offices?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Canada Post is constantly reviewing its network of postal outlets to ensure that they best meet the needs of our customers.
In rural communities, the review of postal services in a community begins following a natural opportunity, which is defined as:
A vacancy in the postmaster's position, such as resignation, retirement, promotion, transfer, etc.;
The unsuitability or unavailability of the premises housing the post office; or
At the request of the community.
The purpose of the review is to determine the best way to continue to provide postal service to the community. This review could result in:
The re-staffing of the postmaster's position;
Conversion to a retail postal outlet;
Amalgation of retail postal services to a nearby community; or
The opening of a retail postal outlet in the community and re-staffing of the corporate outlet.
In every case, however, local mail delivery and the community's postal identity are maintained.
Factors that influence the decision include:
The size of the community;
The demographic trends of the community and area;
The current method and level of service;
The distance to the nearest community;
The revenues earned and the costs incurred at present;
The business base of the community;
The facility currently housing the post office; and
The need for the outlet in Canada Post's mail processing and delivery network.

Government Orders
In urban communities, changes are made with service to our customers as the first priority.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Skeena, on a point of order.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the parliamentary secretary tabled question No. 217 in my name from February 3,1992, which was a question on the Order Paper regarding Revenue Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans paid informant program.
Regrettably part of the answer is inaccurate and false. It states:
Fisheries and Oceans does not have an on going paid informant
program.
In fact, on February 13, 1992, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans wrote to me laying out the paid informant program that has been operated by his department since 1984, the amount that has been paid out per year, the number of payments that have been made and the results of the information obtained from those informants.
I would ask that the parliamentary secretary give an undertaking to the House that the inaccurate and false information contained in the return be remedied, either through the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans or through the tabling of a further and accurate response to a question placed on the Order Paper.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I will have to verify the information that the hon. member has put before the House. We will certainly do our best to make certain he does get an accurate and honest answer to his question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, March 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Siddon that Bill C-51, an Act respecting water resources in the Northwest Territories, be read the second time and referred to legislative committee B.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended today by 33 minutes, beginning at 1 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 32(2)(a).

The hon. member for Skeena, I was wrong last night. You have five minutes left in the debate.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, as you will recall last evening I had the remarkable opportunity to enter into the debate on Bill C-51, legislation to amend the water act in terms of the Northwest Territories. It was a peculiar circumstance because the government introduced the legislation and then did not put up any speakers. In fact, for awhile they all vanished. It was truly an unusual state of affairs.
Certainly the residents, the Canadians who live north of 60 in the Northwest Territories are very interested in this piece of legislation. It is a piece of legislation that delegates the authority presently held by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, a piece of legislation that is administered by the bureaucracy here in Ottawa. As you would know, Mr. Speaker, even if one lived in a large community such as Yellowknife, having to wait for licensing and permits to come all the way from Ottawa to deal with water issues in the Northwest Territories is a pretty ridiculous state of affairs. Certainly with the major advances that there have been in terms of the structure of democratically, locally controlled and elected government in the Northwest Territories now led by the hon. Nellie Cournoyea, it is an entirely appropriate time for this kind of delegation of authority.
March 19, 1992

As I warned last night, the governments of the Northwest Territories, and consequentially with Bill C-52 the Government of the Yukon, should be very alert to obtaining the necessary federal funds to continue to conduct the kinds of nationally significant programs that there need to be in relation to water. As I pointed out, there are major water systems flowing from the provinces into the Yukon and, in this case, into the Northwest Territories. River systems that have been dammed, diverted, contaminated, polluted, sedimented and so on in other jurisdictions come into the Northwest Territories and are going to have an impact on their capacity to administer this legislation.
It is a similar situation with the growing understanding of the movement of airborne toxins through aerosols. In many jurisdictions in Europe, in what was formerly the Soviet Union, and in continental North America, through the process in some situations of incineration, the placement of materials that historically would have gone to a landfill site or to some kind of recycling process are in many cases now being run through an incineration process. They go into the atmosphere. They are moving up through the atmosphere and back down into the water systems of the Northwest Territories.
As I said last night, we are suddenly starting to realize the magnitude of the toxification and the pollution problems affecting the Northwest Territories which is, as we all know, the largest single jurisdiction in Canada and soon perhaps to become two provinces along with the Yukon. So there would be three provinces north of 60 ultimately dealing with these major and significant water issues.
I just flag this for the government members of the Northwest Territories, that members of this House generally agree the delegation as proposed in Bills C-51 and C-52 is a good idea is long overdue and this matter should go to a legislative committee for constructive evaluation to hear witnesses from the Northwest Territories.
Members should be very careful in evaluating the amount of expenditure going on presently at the federal level to deal with this particular jurisdiction and the kinds of international and national responses that are going to be needed to be to evaluate not only the waters that are flowing from other jurisdictions into the North-
Government Orders
west Territories and the impact that will have on their licensing and utilization regimes, but also on the fish, birds and wildlife, the impacts that any modifications to these water systems will have, the implications of international phenomenons such as airborne toxins, not the least of which continues to be airborne acidification, SOx and NOx that come down as acid precipitation and the bio-accumulation and bio-magnification of these toxins up into the life cycles that come to affect particularly the more rural aboriginal and First Nation communities in the Northwest Territories.
There will be a need for a cumulative impact study of the effect, not just of methane releases from large dam reservoir projects, but the importance of the impact evaluation of the reduction at certain times of year of flows of fresh water from the Northwest Territories and from the bounding jurisdictions of Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec on the whole watershed of Hudson Bay and James Bay. Already there is growing scientific evidence that the reduction of freshwater flow into Hudson Bay and James Bay is having a potentially negative and deleterious effect on the Quebec fishery, the Newfoundland fishery and the maritime fisheries.
This is a great opportunity for a small, growing government and administration in the Northwest Territories to take on a jurisdictional task that is truly theirs. They must assure themselves that they acquire the appropriate fiscal instrument from the Parliament of Canada to properly do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I remind hon. members that the length of speeches is now 20 minutes maximum, with a question and comment period.

I may remind hon. members of the Standing Orders. Since the minister presented the motion, even if he did not speak, according to the Standing Orders his speaking time is deemed to have expired. Consequently, the Chair must then recognize a spokesperson for one of the three parties. That is why I am recognizing a spokesperson for the opposition. Subsequently, I will recognize a government member but I repeat, this is a technicality. The government side had a chance to speak yesterday when presenting the bill but did not take advantage of this opportunity. I will now conclude the first round by recognizing a member for the opposition.

March 19, 1992
Government Orders


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would hate to allow this to be a precedent. I realize the argument could be made that the government by moving the motion has thereby been deemed to have spoken.
The rule is quite clear. I believe it is Standing Order 76 which states that the first two speakers are to be allowed 40 minutes each. I am not suggesting that the hon. member for Labrador is going to go on for anything more than possibly 10 minutes. He is a very concise and erudite speaker and he will not need 40 minutes to express his views on this bill.
On some future bill that is perhaps more contentious, I think there is an argument to be made that 40 minutes is an appropriate length of time.
I would like to reserve the point to argue this at another time. I do not think it is appropriate today because I do not want to make a mountain out of a molehill but I am concerned that the right to speak for 40 minutes is an important one. The rule is quite clear, I suggest, for the first two speakers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The Chair was of course careful to check this technical aspect. The first speaker was for the government and is deemed to have spoken, even if he did not actually do so. The government presented a motion to table this bill. So that was the first speaker, and his 40 minutes speaking time has expired, although technically, the 40 minutes were really only 15 seconds.
In any case, I can reconsider and check again with the staff of the House regarding the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, who is an expert on the Standing Orders of the House. However, this is the information I have so far. Consequently, I am prepared to recognize, for not more than 20 minutes, the hon. member for Labrador, even if it means checking again.


Mr. Murphy:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. As the member for Skeena just pointed out it was a rather unusual procedure that happened last night as a
result of rushing into this bill and it created a few problems for the House.
Speaking on behalf of our caucus, we would certainly be willing to give unanimous consent to allow the member 40 minutes if he needs that time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I am the servant of the House. Is there unanimous consent to give 40 minutes to the next speaker? I have no objection.


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I assure you and my colleagues that I will be able to confine myself to 20 minutes.
I am pleased to have the opportunity today to speak in this second reading debate on Bill C-51, the Northwest Territories Waters Act and Bill C-52, the Yukon Waters Act.
I am pleased to indicate on behalf of my party our support in principle for these bills. These bills replace the Northern Inland Waters Act which was passed by this House in 1970 and came into force in 1972. They modernize and update the water management regimes in northern Canada.
The Northern Inland Waters Act was developed to protect and conserve the water resources of Yukon and the Northwest Territories. At the time the bill was introduced it seemed as if the north would be undergoing some major resource development. The bill's objective was to prevent environmental damage from development.
I will quote from the second reading speech of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at that time, whom I am sure the House will recognize. He said:
Major industrial development is about to get under way north of 60. By acting now, this region can be spared the disasters of environmental mismanagement that now plague other parts of Canada.
By acting with determination and decisiveness today, we may ensure that 20 or 30 years from now we will not be faced with settling another tremendous debt as the price of indifference and mismanagement of the water resources of the north.
That minister is now the Leader of the Official Opposition.
March 19, 1992

The Northern Inland Waters Act aimed to achieve a comprehensive and co-ordinated water management regime in the northern territories. It vested the property and the right to the use of surface and ground waters in the Crown. It provided that the right to the use of waters or the right to deposit waste would be granted through the issuance of a licence or through regulations pursuant to the act.
It established quasi-judicial water boards, one in Yukon and one in the Northwest Territories, to issue the licences with the approval of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Until now there have been no changes to the act except for some amendments in 1978 when the Northern Pipeline Act was passed. Despite the worth-while goals of the legislation, problems have been experienced in practice. Shortly after the act was proclaimed the water boards were overwhelmed with applications they could not handle. Consequently the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs used a provision of the act permitting the authorization of specified minor water uses by regulation.
Authority was provided through the regulations for a controller of water rights in each territory to approve all minor water uses which met the specified non-licensing criteria. The result was that over 90 per cent of water applications were approved by the controllers.
In 1981 the Dene nation and the Metis Association of the Northwest Territories filed a claim with the Federal Court. They challenged the legality of the department's non-licensing practice because of the lack of public input. The Federal Court ruled in 1984 that the practice was ultra vires the act.
The department then amended the regulations to exempt certain water users from any approval process. This situation was equally unsatisfactory. The 1985 report of the federal water policy inquiry recommended several changes to the current system. The report said that the arrangement for authorizing minor water uses in Yukon and Northwest Territories should be revised and clarified in consultation with the territorial water boards and other interested parties.
Government Orders
New procedures needed to be established to ensure that all uses of water would be authorized in some way. The complexity of the procedure for processing applications for minor water uses would be commensurate with their importance. Those water uses that may be exempted from the full licensing procedure would be clearly identified in regulations. The water boards would have the power to require a full licensing procedure when they believed it was appropriate. Finally procedures for approving minor as well as major uses would be open to the public and responsive to its concerns.
In 1986 water management concerns in Yukon led to the establishment by the department of a task force on placer mining. Its final report also made recommendations to amend the Northern Inland Waters Act. It recommended that the Northern Inland Waters Act be separated to create two separate acts, one for Yukon and one for the Northwest Territories, and that the regulations also be separated for each territory. It also recommended the establishment of a two-licence concept, class A and class B licences. As well it recommended stop work orders in situations where non-compliance licence conditions pose serious and imminent dangers.
A consultation process was initiated by the department in response to the growing number of calls for changes to the act. The department produced a discussion paper in May 1987. In October 1990 the Yukon Mining Advisory Committee was established. Its report to the minister was submitted in April 1991. All its recommendations except one have apparently been included in the proposed legislation before us which was tabled in the House last December.
It is important and relevant at this time to point out that the Auditor General's 1990 report was extremely critical of the management of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and particularly its water management. The Auditor General noted, for example, that although the department does have some information on water quantity, it has very little information on water quality.
The Auditor General also indicated that the department does not carry out water licence inspection and enforcement vigorously and that several significant wa-

Government Orders
ter contaminations persist in the north. The Auditor General found that:
(1)	The department had not documented water resource management objectives in terms of conservation and development priorities for water management.
(2)	The department needs more data to manage water resources.
(3)	Knowledge regarding airborne pollution is insufficient.
(4)	The department needs to know if water boards are meeting their statutory objectives.
(5)	Enforcement responsibilities are not adequately fulfilled.
(6)	The department needs to more thoroughly screen projects for potential damage to the environment.
(7)	The department has not adequately responded to the recommendations arising from the 1981 Mackenzie River basin study.
The bills we have before us today are meant to address at least some of the concerns expressed by the Auditor General in his 1990 report. We will be examining very closely how these bills respond to the Auditor General's concerns.
On this side of the House we want to acknowledge the consultation process that is being carried out with respect to these bills. Several years of discussion have taken place and the result is an improvement over the existing system.
That is not to say that everyone is totally happy with these bills. While there is a general support in principle, there are some concerns of which we have been made aware that we hope will get further review and discussion in the committee process. These bills essentially split the existing Northern Inland Waters Act into two acts: the Northwest Territories Waters Act and the Yukon Waters Act. I will briefly enumerate some of the bill's provisions. A two-tiered licensing system is established. Minor and major water uses will be dealt with differently. The purpose is to create a more expedient licensing system for minor and non-controversial water use licences.
The criteria to be used in determining whether an application constitutes a major or minor water use application will be set out in regulations. Mandatory
public hearings for minor licences are waived, but water boards will have the power to require one if the public interest so warrants.
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development will have the ability to issue binding policy directions to the water boards. Water boards will have to issue reasons for decision. Domestic and instream water users are recognized in these bills. Water licences will be able to address closures and abandonments of works. Licence conditions will be able to include legally enforceable site specific effluent quality requirements. Compensation and security provisions are sanctioned.
These and other provisions we want to study carefully in committee. The issue of northern water resource management is important and complex.
About 30 per cent of'Canada's fresh water is located in the north. A variety of federal departments has water responsibilities in the north including the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and Environment Canada, but the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs has the legislative responsibility for co-ordinating all government activities in the north. The territorial governments also have major responsibilities and aboriginal people in the territories have significant rights and interests in these waters.
Water is a part of proposed land claims agreements both in Yukon and in the Northwest Territories. I note in this regard that the minister has said that future comprehensive claims settlement legislation may set out aboriginal rights and management roles concerning water resources. Where there is any inconsistency between the acts before us today and future claim settlement legislation, the claim settlement legislation is to prevail.
In conclusion, we look forward to discussing these issues further in committee. We want to ensure the legislation reflects the concerns and interests of the residents of the territories and enhances their ability to have more control over the use of water in their regions.


Mr. Jim Edwards (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Agriculture)):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on Bill C-51 and Bill C-52 which are two pieces of legislation that amend the Northern Inland Waters Act.
March 19, 1992

I listened with care last night to the words of my hon. friend from Skeena, and I must say that it was a lesson for all of us as to how one can synthesize a career full of knowledge on related subjects and somehow annex them to another project before us. I was somewhat amazed and somewhat impressed.
I listened with care to the comments of my hon. friend from Labrador who has shown, as always, careful application of his intellect and his wit to any given subject. I congratulate him on his speech.
The north is known for its resources and no resource is more important than water. In 1970 Parliament acknowledged the value of the water resource by passing the Northern Inland Waters Act. This legislation authorizes the Crown to regulate the planning and use of water resources in Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Parliament at that time created the Northwest Territories and Yukon Water Boards which issue water use licences with the approval of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Two decades have passed since the Northern Inland Waters Act came into force. Circumstances have changed but the legislation has not. The original act met the needs of the time, but a number of weaknesses and inconsistencies have been identified in recent years. It is therefore incumbent upon the House and a commitment of the government to bring the legislation into the 1990s.
Toward that end the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development introduced two separate bills that will replace and update the Northern Inland Waters Act. Bill C-52, the Yukon Waters Act, repeals the existing legislation and replaces it with a system of water resources management that reflects the realities and needs of today. Bill C-51, the Northwest Territories Waters Act, establishes the same arrangements in the Northwest Territories.
There are a number of practical reasons for splitting the current legislation into two separate bills. First, this step acknowledges that the Northwest Territories and Yukon are two separate and distinct territories. It recognizes that each territory has its own particular water issues and geographic characteristics as well as different needs, priorities and economies.
Government Orders
Splitting the act will allow water management systems to evolve differently in each territory. In the longer term it will also facilitate the eventual devolution of responsibility for water management to the territorial governments, should this be desired.
Having said that, I want to make it clear that the two bills before the House today are based on the existing Northern Inland Waters Act and in fact maintain many of the same provisions. They both contain essentially the same amendments, and I will be addressing them as a single entity. The only significant difference between the two bills is that the Yukon Act repeals the existing legislation. This step is necessary in order for the new legislation to be enacted.
A number of problems have been identified regarding the Northern Inland Waters Act. Concerns about the legal certainty of the licensing process, the accountability of the minister and the rights of domestic and traditional users have been expressed by many stakeholders.
Our objective with the new acts is to correct these inadequacies. We are not establishing a completely new system for water management north of 60, rather we are building on existing structures and processes in order to strengthen and clarify the system. The amendments we are proposing will help streamline water use licensing, which in turn will contribute to economic development and job creation in the north. The amendments will also respect the overriding need to protect the environment, human life and health.
It is important to recognize that these proposals are generally supported by all interested groups in the north, including environmentalists, aboriginal people, the territorial governments and industry. In fact, the legislation before us today is the product of lengthy and exhaustive consultations with the many groups concerned with northern water management.
In particular, I would like to draw members' attention to the role played by the Yukon Mining Advisory Committee to which my friend from Labrador has already referred. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development established this committee in October 1990 to review the proposed changes to the Northern Inland Waters Act as well as changes to the lands legislation affecting mining. The detailed examination it performed is a fine example of the government's

March 19, 1992
Government Orders
commitment to consult on important issues such as this. On behalf of the minister, I am pleased to say that the committee has done an excellent and thorough job. It conducted an extensive review of the proposed changes and provided important feedback that has enabled us to improve and strengthen the legislation.
The advisory committee has representation from all major stakeholders in the Yukon, including non-mining groups. Despite its name, the committee's representation includes aboriginal people, the territorial government, environmentalists, the mining industry and of course the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I congratulate Mr. W. A. Dunbar, the chair of the committee and all those who participated in the committee's work.
Bills C-51 and C-52 strike an excellent balance between addressing the needs of industry, aboriginal groups and the federal and territorial governments. The balance comes about as a result of consultations with the Yukon Mining Advisory Committee and other concerned parties in the Northwest Territories. The results of this process are an excellent example of what can be achieved through consultation.
We are proposing a number of changes that will modernize and expand legislative controls for managing freshwater resources in the territories. These amendments have three principal objectives: first, to streamline the licensing process; second, to provide greater protection to all persons who may be adversely affected by a water use; and third, to ensure that licence holders comply with terms and conditions through strengthened enforcement measures.
To streamline the water licensing process, we propose establishing a two-tiered licensing system for major and minor water users. For major users the existing water board licensing system will remain in place, including the requirement for public hearings and licence approval by the minister. As well, public hearings which are currently mandatory will be waived when the amendments do not affect the use, flow or quality of waters or the term of the licence.
However, a new speedier process will be established for licensing minor non-controversial uses of water. The territorial water boards will have the authority to issue minor licences without the approval of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Public hearings will not generally be required but the water boards
will have the authority to hold hearings if this would be in the public interest.
The water boards will advertise all applications for licences. As well, the amendments will require the water boards to give reasons for their decisions to grant or reject a proposed new water use. If a licensee will be significantly affected by the new water use, the water boards will not be able to issue the second licence unless both parties agree.
The streamlined mechanisms seek to address the regulatory and administrative burden on minor licence applicants. In so doing, we are simplifying the assessment process while ensuring the opportunity for full review when necessary.
The new legislation will also give the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development explicit authority to issue policy directions to the water boards. This amendment is not intended to give the minister new authority or to limit the independence of the boards. Rather, it will simply clarify the minister's existing accountability which is vague in the current legislation.
The new bills will also give the minister the authority to delegate his responsibilities in relation to the water boards to the appropriate territorial minister. Although there are currently no plans to do so, this new provision will allow delegation at an appropriate time in the future. This would be an interim step prior to devolution of water management to the territorial governments.
Another major improvement over the existing legislation is the proposal to make domestic and instream water users eligible for compensation should their interests be affected by a licensed operation. As a word of explanation, an instream user is someone who uses water to earn income or for subsistence, but who does not actually take water or alter the water's flow. For example, aboriginal people who depend on fishing for income or food would be considered instream users.
Although domestic and instream users are not eligible for licences, under the proposed amendments, the water boards will consider their interests when licence conditions are being developed. This is an important measure because the status of domestic and instream users is unclear in the existing legislation. This is a reasonable and effective means of recognizing the interests of all water users.
March 19. 1992

I am especially pleased to inform the House that these new acts will allow the federal government and the territorial water boards to take a much stronger stance on environmental issues than in the past. For example, they provide explicit authority for the water boards to address closure and abandonment of licensed operations. As well, the inspection and enforcement provisions of the legislation have been strengthened. Inspectors will be able to enforce licence conditions by issuing stop work and clean-up orders where there is danger to persons or to the environment. All licence conditions will be enforceable.
Under the proposed amendments, the list of potential offences has also been broadened. For example, these bills will make it an offence to violate any licence conditions or to fail to report a deposit of waste and penalties have been expanded and modernized. The new bills increase the maximum fines for major licensees from $5,000 to $100,000 and for minor users the increase will be from $5,000 to $15,000. The bills also introduce the possibility of jail terms.
Finally, in relation to the environment, Bills C-51 and C-52 confirm that the territorial water boards can set water quality conditions that are more stringent than those set out even under the Fisheries Act.
Hon. members should also be aware that the new legislation provides for compensation to be paid to anyone who suffers losses as a result of a water use. As I mentioned earlier, this provision includes domestic and instream users.
The provisions of the legislation relating to security deposits have also been strengthened and clarified. Under the proposed amendments, such deposits may be used to guarantee compliance with licence conditions, to remedy violations or to pay court ordered compensation.
The remaining amendments contained in Bills C-51 and C-52 are minor and essentially administrative in nature.
I want to reiterate that these proposals are for the most part supported by all key stakeholders in the north. They were developed after extensive consultations. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has taken special care to ensure that the Yukon Waters Act and the Northwest Territories Waters Act respect the interests of northern natives. In this regard, we are
Government Orders
particularly pleased with the environmental stewardship components of the legislation. The amendments that clarify instream uses of water and compensation for damages are also extremely important to aboriginal people.
It has been suggested that changes to the administration system for water management should be postponed until the major land claims in the north are resolved. We cannot agree with that approach. Changes to the Northern Inland Waters Act are long overdue and have been in the works for a number of years. The amendments we are proposing will result in improved legislation for water management regimes that are established under claims settlements. Where there are inconsistencies between future claims settlement agreements and this water management legislation, the claims settlement legislation will take precedence.
In closing, I would like to remind members that these amendments are fully in keeping with the government's policy on northern political development. They provide for decision-making to be moved closer to the people and they will facilitate the eventual transfer of legislative responsibility for water management to the territorial governments.
As well, the amendments address our commitment under the Arctic environmental strategy, the green plan, and will enhance our ability to protect the northern environment.
Finally, by streamlining administrative arrangements we will encourage sustainable, environmentally responsible economic development. This will translate into jobs for northerners and increased economic prosperity for all of Canada.
In short, this is an excellent example of a situation where everyone wins. I urge hon. members to join with the many other Canadians who support these legislative amendments.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief on this bill. As you know, our community has had a very active campaign going to bring to people's attention the importance of the management of our water resources in this country. I too would like to support the government in bringing this legislation up to date.

March 19, 1992
Government Orders
As the member for Calgary Southwest said earlier in his remarks, there are people out there who believe that maybe this legislation should wait until some of the land claims, et cetera are settled. I tend to share his view that when it comes to this issue, time is of the essence.
I believe it goes well beyond the land claims issue. I believe that right now if there is one issue in this country that can still galvanize us as a nation, it is the issue of the water resource management. It is very important that the national government take a lead role in making sure our legislation is right up to speed.
As time evolves here, if the position of the national government in terms of water resource management is not crystal clear, we are going to get into all kinds of jurisdictional disputes. I see this bill as being very important in sending out a strong signal that even though we respect the territorial management of these water resource management bills, at the same time we should never forget that the national government is ultimately the body responsible for managing the environment in this country.
It seems that in the last few days we are getting conflicting signals, that different provinces are suggesting for example that Bill C-13 is somehow an infringement on provincial responsibility and authority.
We should set the record straight right now. If we cannot have national environmental standards, and if we have a situation where the national government is subservient in an environmental act to a provincial standard, then what kind of a joke are we going to be to the rest of the world. If there is one thing that we all agree on today, it is the fact that we must do what we have to do to save the planet. The last thing that we need is a situation where coming from Canada we have seven different voices and seven different standards as to how the environmental standards of this country should be set, or managed, or administered.
When it comes to this particular issue, I believe it is the one issue on which Canadians want us to speak with one voice. We have been talking a lot for the last few months about referendums. We wanted to have referen-dums on the Constitution, we wanted to have referendums on different aspects of our economy. If there is one
area on which we should consider a national referendum it should be the environment.
If we had a national referendum in this country as to what body of government should ultimately be responsible for setting national standards, I would venture to say that 90 per cent of Canadians would say the national government should be the ultimate spokesman in this area.
I want to commend the government for putting these bills on the agenda, moving them through so quickly and making sure there is a clear-cut signal sent that our environmental house will be in order in the not too distant future. As I said earlier, it is the one issue on which all Canadians will get behind us in this House if we say that we are ultimately going to set national standards.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: I would like to make a comment and maybe ask a question of the hon. member.
This act respecting water resources in the Northwest Territories is certainly an act that would be acceptable. What bothers me is that we do not talk about the water resources in Canada and the implications to the North American continent.
The Americans have been interested in Canada's water for a long, long time. I remember seeing a program on American television in which Californians were talking about their problems with water. They said the problem is going to be solved once they get the water from Canada, from the Northwest Territories and other rivers.
We had a free trade agreement and if I remember correctly, the government said that water was not included in this agreement. Now the government is negotiating what it calls NAFTA, the North American free trade agreement. We, as members of Parliament, have not been consulted. Other members in the House have asked questions of the government. They wanted information because they say the Mexicans know how the negotiations are progressing. The American Congress is involved but Canadian parliamentarians are not. We are being set aside and in one moment, maybe next week, the government is going to present an agreement and ask us to support the North American free trade agreement which might sell our water to the Americans.

March 19, 1992

I remember a former member in this House, Mr. Desmarais, the brother of the famous Mr. Desmarais, was heading a company that was supposed to sell water from Canada to the United States. I, as a member of Parliament, have problems with a bill that comes in, looks nice, but is one of which we do not know the implications. The government does not answer the fundamental questions such as how we are going to deal with our water resources in the new North American free trade agreement.
I am asking the hon. member whether he could elaborate on this point.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague because he is so right when he identifies the fact that some of the best lawyers in this nation have stated categorically that there is potential, under the free trade agreement, for water to be sold to the Americans.
We have asked the government many times to request a one-page special protocol agreement from the United States saying that water is not part of the free trade agreement. I have even written Clayton Yeutter myself asking him for a clear-cut position on whether he believes water is part of the free trade agreement and he has never answered me. I have written him several times.
I am concerned about the water and free trade agreement connection. I think it is one part of the hidden agenda of the Americans in the free trade agreement.
I want to address the point about the Grand Canal, the great recycling and northern development project. In chapter 9 of Premier Bourassa's book Power from the North, he describes that project in detail.
I had a town hall meeting in my riding with the gentleman, Mr. Thomas Kierans, who conceived the idea of recycling the lower end waters of James Bay and channelling them down through into the Great Lakes and ultimately through Lake Michigan into the United States. It was a hotly contested debate.
The point is that there is a lot of concern and most important is the environmental concern.
We will pass in this House today Bill C-13. With it, anything and everything related to the environment in this country will have to go through this process. Make no mistake about it. In a newspaper article I saw that the provincial premier of the environment for the province of Quebec thought this was some kind of a totalitarian bill. That language was a bit aggressive. Make no mistake
Government Orders
about it, and he should not make any mistake about it, the provincial environmental system will be subservient to the national government's environmental procedures after Bill C-13 is passed today.
That is something that the people of Canada will welcome.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the details on the Grand Canal. I would like the hon. member to answer and give his opinion because he wrote to the negotiators on the free trade agreement on whether the water was included. I understand that he did not get a straight answer.
What is his personal feeling? Is water included in the free trade agreement? In the new free trade agreement with Mexico and the United States will it be included? It is a hypothetical question but he could probably answer it.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Obviously I cannot deal with a hypothetical question in terms of Mexico. We do not know what is going to be included.
In terms of the free trade agreement with the United States, the answer is categorically yes. Water is a part of the free trade agreement.
I am not an expert on water law, but I have gone to lawyers who are experts and they have verified that.
I believe that water is the secret part of the agenda as to why the Americans really want it. I sincerely believe this, I say to my friend from Calgary. By the way, if you do not believe that, then the government should get a one-page special protocol letter from the United States government saying water is not a part of the free trade agreement. Remember that Clayton Yeutter, who was the chief negotiator of the free trade agreement, did his PhD thesis in North American water management. His whole thought process his whole life has been on North American water management.
We possess enough water in Canada to look after the entire world. I am not against sharing our water with the United States, but I do not think we should just be giving it to them. This is a separate debate and a separate discussion. In the future, rather than have people die of thirst, our friendly neighbours to the south, it may be that we can use water as a way of trading for bringing jobs back here. I am not paranoid about trading water with the United States, but we should get something in return, whereas right now we have given it away.

March 19, 1992

Government Orders


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I rise to put a few words on the record about the bill that we are debating now, Bill C-51, the act respecting water resources in the Northwest Territories.
I would like to make two general comments. The first is to share the concerns of the member for Broadview- Greenwood about water exports.
In British Columbia there are a number of water export plans and in particular a plan known for sometime now as NAWPA, the North American Water and Power Alliance. It is almost science fiction, the whole question about the flooding of the Rocky Mountain trench. It would flood part of my riding.
I want to rise and share the concerns of the member because it is one of those things mulling around in somebody's mind down in the United States and if we are not cautious I fear that our government may be ambushed, if you like, or certainly will allow itself to go down the wrong route and we could be very seriously hurt on this issue. It is certainly important to flag this issue for the government and for the Canadian public.
There is also a project very much in the news just north of Kamloops that my colleague, the member for Kamloops, has been raising in this House on a regular basis. Water seems to have an essence to it that people get very concerned about. We are concerned about our forests and our fish, but water is a very emotional issue and we want to ensure that our government is aware of that.
My second point relates to the Northwest Territories. We are now debating a bill that in essence is a positive approach in terms of the development of local authority and giving, in this case, the emerging government of the Northwest Territories more responsibility for administering local affairs, in this case water. We support that.
I would like to add a bit of a British Columbia perspective and a suggestion to the government. Water does not reflect the artificial boundaries that we draw on maps. I am thinking here specifically of the Peace River, which flows from British Columbia, north of my riding, through Alberta and up into the Northwest Territories.
There are reports that we are now starting to see the very negative impacts of what is called the WAC Bennett Dam, let alone the environmental effects of the creation of Williston Lake and the large body of water that has been created there.
Some are suggesting, particularly in the Dawson Creek, Fort St. John and Mackenzie areas, that there will be quite a change in the weather by the creation of this large body of water and the downstream effects in the Peace River now being affected by the WAC Bennett Dam and its impact there and its eventual impact in the Northwest Territories.
My plea and advice to the government and to the committee when it considers this bill is obviously to hear witnesses. This is a good example of a piece of legislation where bringing witnesses to the committee would provide all members with an excellent opportunity to hear the technical arguments of how important this legislation is.
I would urge that not only officials from the Northwest Territories but also people from Alberta are seeing the impact of this as well as those from British Columbia. As you know, the former government in B.C. had this mindset about Site C, another dam on the Peace and I do not think any consideration was given to what the downstream effects would be.
I would urge the committee when it is reviewing this bill to also call witnesses from the Government of British Columbia, who have done some studies and have reason to be concerned about what authorities may do in our province and the impact it is going to have in Alberta and when this bill comes into place in the Northwest Territories.
I would hope that the government would hear these comments when the bill is before committee and that it would consider bringing these witnesses in. This would be an excellent opportunity to hear these concerns because, of course, as I said at the beginning of my comments the very concern that all of us have about our water is that it flows cleanly and wherever possible without restriction. When we do have some of these

March 19, 1992

projects, we must make sure that they undergo the strictest assessment possible.
Of course, the whole question of the Kemano project on the Nechako River comes immediately to mind and how this government has done everything it can to thwart the rules of the land when it relates to that particular project. To the committee, I say: Please hear some witnesses on that. Hearing from those witnesses would really add to some of the debate on the bill. They may have some excellent advice to give all members of this House.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's remarks carefully. I too, share many of his concerns and also his constructive amendments to this bill. I want to ask him something philosophical.
I have always believed that the environment is the one area where, if we had a national standard, that would allow us to develop a national will which would assist in this process of galvanization that we need so badly in this country right now when things are so fragile.
It seems to me that when we are putting so many different environmental bills through the House of Commons right now that we are getting reaction from different legislatures. We are getting different types of reaction. Some are supportive of our Bill C-13; others are not as supportive.
This is one area where the general public does not need a mixed signal. I believe the general public wants a clear understanding that it is the national government which really sets the standard and leads the way when it comes to the environmental standards in this country.
My question to the member is this: What does he think of the idea of having a national referendum on the environment? I am not the expert on referendums here. Of course, the expert is the member for Etobicoke- Lakeshore whom I do not think we utilize as much as we should in this House with his expertise and all the work he has done. So I do not know how it would be structured.
The idea behind this referendum would be to hear from Canadians whether or not they want their municipality to speak on the environment, their province to
Government Orders
speak on the environment or if they want Canada to be the ultimate voice of direction and authority when it comes to this issue.
I was wondering if the member could give me some remarks on that.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments by the member for Broadview-Greenwood. First I have a couple of comments and then I would be pleased to address his question.
My experience and view from the little travelling I have done across the country is that in their own way I think the member is right that Canadians do look to Ottawa and to the national government as the last stop gap in terms of degradation of our environment. Even regardless of party and office, there is a sense among Canadians that maybe Ottawa is the last bulwark of attempting to solve some of these problems.
If we think of political science courses, the argument from some instructors is that we will vote one way provincially and another way federally basically to try to balance the different levels of government. Maybe it is part of that. It is my sense that that is what Canadians feel.
I would strongly endorse the view on national standards. I think we have been relatively lucky in Canada so far and that we have not had a situation where one province plays off the other by saying: "You're a big polluting company, come to our province and we won't tax you or we will build all the roads for you". I do not get the sense that we have done that quite as much as say, in the southern United States where a great deal of that is heard of.
Certainly, in Canada there is the unfortunate part where we have done it in terms of labour legislation. I think of the Michelin bill in Nova Scotia, negative and bad labour legislation so that companies think they can then have a free hand in that area.
That is not to say that there have not been problems in the environment as well. I think of the former government in British Columbia and the then minister's appearance before the committee here where he was expressing some concerns about this bill. Actually, the environment minister from Alberta comes to mind as being particularly backward in his thinking, as I recall, on this legislation.

March 19, 1992
Government Orders
The member asks about a national referendum on the environment and he makes reference to the work of the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore. I spoke on that member's private member's bill on referenda. I said that I was not particularly opposed to the idea. My comments that night were to express some caution, that we do not want to use referenda to beat up on anybody, to beat up on Quebec, Don Getty, or our First Nations people. That is not what I would see as the role of a referendum.
I would say this, if my comments are right on the mark about how Canadians feel about the national government needing some direction and support from Canadians about national standards, my sense is that on a referendum question that we would likely get support of most Canadians.
In fact, the comments that the member for Skeena made last night when debating Bill C-13 about some of the positions that members from Quebec were taking, that Quebec will still be there, the fish will swim, the birds will fly and whatever boundaries we talk about or whatever governments and institutions we set up will not mean anything.
If anything, we need to buttress national standards of the federal government. If a referendum somewhere down the road will help achieve that goal, then I do not have a particular personal problem with that.
Let us not just do something for the sake of doing it. We can achieve a lot more through community groups and by having governments that actually do something to protect the environment.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on national referenda as far as water is concerned. As you know, I had two bills, one in this House and one in the previous House on national referenda.
I am a firm believer that we should consult people on major issues. It is essential that people have input. I am in favour of a referendum and I think it would unite the country.
As well, I would like to mention that the PC caucus in 1988 before the election had a water policy and I would like to quote from that water policy. As we know, water is included in the free trade agreement. But what does the water policy say? I quote: "The PC government's new federal water policy specifically prohibits the export
of Canadian water by interbasin transfer-the diversion of lakes or rivers. At the same time the government's conviction that the free trade agreement does not in any way put Canada's water at risk of being traded to the United States is supported by trade and legal experts".
That is what was being said before the 1988 election. The quote continues: "Moreover, the trade legislation has been amended to explicitly rule out any large scale water transfers".


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I have listened with care to what has been going on here with the questions and answers.
I think that the hon. member opposite, with all due respect, is endeavouring to drag in an issue that has absolutely no relevancy to this debate at all. What we are talking about is the Northwest Territories and Yukon Waters Acts amendments. It has nothing to do with this old canard of alleged water exports to the United States, which I thought the hon. member would have abandoned a long time ago and found something new to talk about.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. I have to take exception to what the member said.
We are talking here about an act respecting water resources in the Northwest Territories. That has everything to do with some of the ideas that have been discussed broadly across North America about water diversions, interbasin transfers.
It is important that we make it crystal clear to Canadians that this bill we are debating will prohibit or prevent any province or any free trade agreement from ever getting involved with something like the Grand Canal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBIois):: The time for questions and comments has now expired. I simply would like to add that it is always difficult for the Chair to determine relevance, and I think that in this respect, both sides of the House made their point.
Before resuming debate, since the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands seems to have some reservations about the ruling I gave earlier today that the hon. member for Labrador was the third speaker and was therefore entitled to not more than 20 minutes, I just want to mention one of the sources on which I based my ruling. I am referring to the Precis of Procedure of the
March 19, 1992

House of Commons, Fourth Edition, which says that the Speaker may subsequently recognize the mover if the latter so desires, and otherwise any other member. However, the mover must speak first, if he wishes to speak, because by the very fact of presenting the motion, he is deemed to have spoken-this is important, he is deemed to have spoken-and the Chair will not be able to recognize him again later on. So even if last night the mover did not speak, according to the Standing Orders he is nevertheless deemed to have spoken because he presented the motion. Technically, the hon. member for Labrador became the third speaker. I just wanted to add this clarification to the ruling I gave this morning.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, since I was interrupted I will take this occasion to continue my thought process on the water issue. Bill C-51 deals with water in the Northwest Territories. Water is one of the main resources of Canada and, as a nation, if we want to survive, we have to be careful what we do with it.
As members know, at the present time Canada has a resource-based economy. We have water and we have natural resources. I would like to quote from "Canada West Fact Finder". In 1990, Alberta exported $15.6 billion of goods. Of those goods, energy was 58 per cent; forest products, 4 per cent; agriculture, 16 per cent; and manufacturing only 6 per cent. The same thing applies to British Columbia where forestry was 56 per cent and the manufacturing sector only 6 per cent.
As members can see, all of our economy is based on resources. This is why the United States and Mexico are interested in having a free trade agreement with Canada. They want our resources. We have no manufacturing base, or very little. The one that exists is being destroyed in Ontario and Quebec. So water is one of the other elements that the United States and Mexico want.
The question is, are we going to have a bill, Bill C-51? Is it going to deal with the control of our water resources or not? I believe that the government has failed because it has sold out to North American business interests, especially in the United States with the signing of a free trade agreement that includes water as well. Even so, in
Government Orders
their promises on water policy before the last election, the government was very explicit in stating that water was not included.
We are facing a dilemma as a nation. Do we want to be simply the suppliers of the raw materials for the world or do we want a nation that respects itself and develops a manufacturing base? I think this government has fooled not only me, because I did support the free trade agreement, and this is one of the votes that I do regret. The promises that were made to us were somewhat different than what the reality is.
I hope Bill C-51 goes to the legislative committee, where appropriate witnesses will be called and amendments will be put forward.
Mr. Speaker, this is the only thing I wanted to say as I was interrupted in my comments by another member here.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to interrupt the hon. member. What I was seeking to do earlier on, as you so wisely observed, sir, was to get some pertinence to the debate. I value this opportunity to strive to bring us back to that.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood was quite correct when he underlined the fact that this pair of bills, C-51 and C-52, have absolutely nothing to do with any alleged export of water to the United States. He was quite correct in pointing out that they do relate to water matters in the two territories.
But I would draw to the attention of the member for Calgary Northeast that the Canada-U.S. International Boundary Waters Treaty, which I think has stood for some 70 years now, forbids the diversion of water to the United States or to any other country. So the protection exists.
I am somewhat amazed that the hon. member, as a member from Alberta, rather than throwing up his hands and suggesting that we are being raped or we are about to be raped, would not work for value-added industries in our province. He should be working for diversification of our economy, rather than cry, as Chicken Little did, that the sky is falling in some way or another.

March 19, 1992
Government Orders
This gentleman campaigned for the free trade agreement and now he appears to have become an opponent of free trade. He has missed the Reform nomination and perhaps now he is seeking the New Democratic Party nomination. Mr. Speaker, I think that we have not had a constructive contribution to this debate; rather, we have had a red herring dragged across the floor of the House and it has no pertinence and is just appealing to some of the baser instincts of Canadians.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that Alberta faces a crisis. Alberta has lost 70,000 jobs in the oil and gas industry since 1985. This is a fact. We hear about lay-offs every day in Alberta. The gas and oil industry is in big difficulty. This has happened under this administration. It is this administration, the Conservative government that came to power in 1984, that promised prosperity for Alberta.
At least we have a responsive, responsible provincial government that seems to try to help the people of Alberta but the members from Alberta certainly do not represent the interests of Alberta in this Parliament.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary Southwest):: Mr. Speaker, I know the member for Calgary Northeast had no intention of misleading this House with his comments. Jobs have been lost in the oil and gas industry which is a market-wide industry now. It was this government that removed the National Energy Program. Regarding water, it was this government through the free trade agreement that ensured that water would not be on the table, with the exception of bottled water.
I feel very strongly that diversification throughout Alberta, and indeed many provinces, is extremely necessary. I wonder if the hon. member might like to inform the House just where he has been, and why he does not go back to his riding and find out exactly how the province of Alberta is diversifying.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I am looking at the statistics and I can see that Alberta has 4 per cent of manufacturing. I do not think it has changed in the last five years.
I have been trying to bring new industries into Alberta. But the fiscal policies of this government do not permit that. The fiscal policies, the transportation policies of this government have been a complete failure. It even cut the VIA trains, so that Canadians could not move from one province to another and see the beauty of this
country. This is the government that sold out to the interests in the free trade agreement to the United States.
I am really sorry this is happening. I hope this government will have the courage to go to the people and call an election.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Why don't you go back to your riding Kindy?


Mr. Lee Richardson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I just did not want this debate to continue with the impression left by the hon. member that things were that bad in Alberta. As my hon. colleague from Calgary Southwest noted, had the hon. member ever had the occasion to visit his own riding, he might be more encouraged and less pessimistic than he is.
We hear this gloom and doom consistently from the member for Calgary Northeast. I appreciate that if you stayed in Ottawa all your life or spent the rest of your time in eastern Europe, you might see gloom and doom. But come out to Calgary once in a while I say to the member for Calgary Northeast, and you will see a vibrant, booming economy, a diversified economy. I look in my own riding at the Foothills Industrial Park. I see innovative technology, work ethic, high-tech, new jobs created, not just in the oil and gas business, but a vibrant new economy with an open market in the United States for Calgary companies who are transporting goods to the United States into new markets. It is a booming, optimistic economy, the result of the free trade agreement.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I think the statistics are somewhat different. As I mentioned, 70,000 jobs have been lost in Alberta since 1984 in the oil and gas industry. That is reality.
I am a physician. I have a lot of friends in my riding who use to be my patients. They are losing their jobs. They are losing their houses because of the policies of this government. It introduced the goods and services tax that has put this country into a depression, not a recession. The Government of Alberta is fighting the goods and services tax in the courts. And what are those members from Alberta doing? They are not supporting their provincial government. They are supporting the centralists here in Ottawa.
March 19, 1992

I am really amazed at this attitude of some of the members from Alberta who do not work for the interests of Alberta. Once they come here, they drink water and they become stooges for the federal government.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I remind the hon. member that Bill C-51 is on study now in the House.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I wonder if it would be possible for the House to ask you to review the "blues".
I do think I heard the member for Calgary Northeast make a statement which suggested that members of Parliament come down to Ottawa to drink, which is absolutely not true.


Mr. Rocheleau:: To drink water.


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: I would ask you to review the "blues". If that is what he said I think the member should be asked to withdraw those words.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I said they come to Ottawa and drink the water here. I did not mention any other substance, just water.


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


Some hon. members:: Question.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, March 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
Government Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: On a point of order, the hon. member for Churchill.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking clarification. It was my understanding that we were going to Bill C-52 at this point. I know what you have called, I would just-


An hon. member:: It is on the Order Paper.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I remind the hon. member that the projected order of business is subject to change without notice. It is the order of the day. I have no option than to take note of that bill.


Ms. Mary Clancy (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, it is with a certain amount of chagrin that I rise to speak on this bill because there have been so many occasions when I have spoken in this House on this very matter.
This bill is an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act.
Those are two areas that most particularly in my province of Nova Scotia we are having some difficulties with. I represent, as most members of this House know, the city of Halifax. Within the larger area of the city, my riding and the riding of Halifax West, we have five universities. These are respected and historic institutions of higher education and learning.
We have indeed in the city of Halifax the oldest university in the British Commonwealth outside the British Isles, that being the University of King's College.
We have the largest university in Atlantic Canada with professional schools famous world-wide, Dalhousie University. We have the only women's degree-granting institution in the British Commonwealth of Nations, Mount St. Vincent University. We also have the Nova Scotia College of Art and Design, the Atlantic School of Theology, and of course, St. Mary's University.
Every one of those institutions is suffering. Our universities across the country are suffering, but most particularly in the Atlantic region. We are suffering from the highest tuition fees in the country from the oldest physical plants and from the lowest salaries to our faculty and staff.
There is a great and historic tradition in the province of Nova Scotia with regard to higher education. Indeed, we say with pardonable pride in Nova Scotia that it is graduates of our institutions who have gone across this country to staff other universities.

March 19, 1992
Government Orders
I see my hon. colleague across the way from Calgary and the president of the University of Calgary, Murray F-aser, was my dean at Dalhousie Law School.
The University of Victoria Law School was founded by Dalhousie graduates. The University of British Columbia was founded by academicians from Nova Scotia.
We have our graduates in schools and institutions and hospitals and legislatures right across this country. So we have been providing a valued service to the people of Canada for a long time. We are very proud of this tradition. We are proud of our graduates. We are proud of our students.
But our students in Nova Scotia are taking a beating that they just cannot sustain much longer. Dalhousie University had to increase tuition fees this year by 10 per cent. A lot of us in this House have children who are in university or are getting to the age to be university students.
Ten per cent is a large amount of money, particularly in the midst of the worst recession that this country has seen since the depression of the 1930s, particularly when unemployment is soaring. It is soaring most highly in Atlantic Canada, particularly when it is impossible for students to earn enough money either in summer employment, part-time jobs or a combination of both, even along with student loans and bursaries, to keep themselves in university.
What are we doing by bills such as Bill C-60, which continue the cuts to post-secondary education? We are effectively saying that post-secondary education in this country is the purview of the wealthy. This is not a Canadian tradition. This indeed is anathema to the Canadian tradition of post-secondary education.
In the province of Nova Scotia, the children of fishermen, farmers, coal-miners and steelworkers went to university because successive Canadian governments ensured that a university education was accessible to
everybody. It was not just accessible to the children of the wealthy classes.
Indeed, the Alma Mater of the Prime Minister of this country, St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish has a tradition of educating those people from northern Nova Scotia, the vast majority of whom descend from the coal-miners, the steelworkers, the fishermen and farmers of Cape Breton Island.
How can we sit by and let this happen to our educational system? We hear and talk all the time about competitiveness. We talk about the globalization of our economy. We talk about the need for Canadians to be able to compete.
Is there one person in this Chamber who does not believe that we can produce competitive and well-educated people for our labour force? No, there is not. We have the potential to do it.
If we effectively shut off post-secondary education to those people who were not bom with silver spoons in their mouths, then any idea that we may be competitive in a world market can just be thrown out the window.
Those universities with such great traditions, such great histories will soon be unable to function at anything close to what should be their capacity.
What is the reason for that? The reason is that this federal government has decided to shut down to a great degree the kind of funding that is necessary to keep those universities functioning. Along with the inability to function as institutes of education, we have a similar problem in the area of research and development. Where is research and development done in the main in Canada? In universities.
I look again at my own Alma Mater, Dalhousie University with its great medical school that has provided doctors for this country and internationally, as my colleague from Winnipeg would agree. The kind of research that Dalhousie University has become famous for has been cut back, cut back and cut back. What is the end result in that? It is twofold.
First of all, this country loses the opportunity to be home for the kinds of developments that Canada has become famous for. Second, our universities lose the kind of vibrant, creative talents who would have gone

there to teach and to do research, but because the money is drying up, where do they go? They go to the United States.
I can understand some people on the other side of the House who would say, yes, because in the United States the money comes from the private sector and from big business, et cetera. That is their tradition. It is also a country with a population of 250 million plus. We on the other hand are in a country of-I have not heard the latest census statistics-but we are somewhere in the area of 27 million.
It is just utterly unrealistic, not to say foolish, to think that we could possibly compete in the development of private donations to research and development, particularly within the university context in the same manner. It is not possible. We do not have the population base.
It therefore is incumbent upon the government to do the best it can to ensure that the standards of education, research, development and the physical plants where this is carried out at least maintain a level of acceptance.
Let me talk about those physical plants for a minute too. Last fall, I was invited to a meeting by the students of Dalhousie University on this very tuition hike that Bill C-60 is making necessary.
I walked into the student union building, two blocks from my house, and the lobby of the student union building was filled with concerned and frightened young people.
One young woman got up and told the assembled group that she was in a 100-level class as a freshman at Dalhousie University in a classroom that was built for 50 people. There were 150 students crowded into that room. It was a fire hazard and it continues to be a fire hazard. Because of the cutbacks epitomized by Bill C-60, our universities are being forced to educate our children in rooms that are unsafe. That is merely a small example of what is going on.
Surely we are not so blind in this Chamber as to see what we are doing to ourselves by refusing to grant the kind of money that universities need to succeed, that they need to make Canada or keep Canada on the competitive edge in this globalized economy.
Are we really that blind not to understand that if we are going to take our rightful place as competitors in world markets we can only do this with young people
Government Orders
trained and educated and ready to take on the kinds of jobs that will be necessary to keep us there?
There is a second aspect to this bill and that is the health contributions aspect. This is something that we all have to be very careful and very serious about.
If there is a jewel in our social service network in this country that jewel is medicare. If there is something that truly makes this country different, more compassionate, more caring and indeed more of a desirable place to live for its citizens and more of an example in the international community, it is medicare.
Medicare has been with us for 27 years. It is something that all Canadians, everyone of us, no matter what your political stripe, take as a benefit of absolutely amazing proportions. There is not a person in this House who cannot tell a horror story of what happened to either a member of his or her own family or to someone they knew in the days before medicare.
I recall one evening shortly after I came to this Chamber having dinner with two of my colleagues from two other parts of the country. Each one of us had a family story in the pre-medicare days of how illness or accident had caused tremendous financial hardship because of the cost of medical services before Canada brought in medicare under the great Allan J. MacEa-chen of the other place.
We cannot allow for the erosion of medical services. I have just come back from a visit to Washington with the Sub-Committee on the Status of Women. I have listened to Americans in the field of health care talk about that system. We hear the figure that there are 36 million Americans not covered by some form of medical insurance. When we were in Washington last week, we learned that figure was incorrect. In fact, the number is closer to 96 million.
There are 96 million people who are either not covered or not covered enough for medical care in the United States, the land of the free and the home of the brave. I was really glad last week to realize that I lived in a country that would not allow that to happen.
This is a very precious gift we have and we must be very careful and jealously guard the existence and the continuation of our medicare system. There is no question that costs are escalating in the area of medicare and that we must be very careful to watch those costs.

March 19, 1992
Government Orders
I was a part of the health and welfare committee which did a very long study and made some recommendations to this House. I do not know where those recommendations are with regard to government policy. I see the minister across the way shrug his shoulders. I am sure he has read the report and is very familiar with the recommendations.
There were some good recommendations in there that related to the modernization in the realm of communication, which is an area I know the minister is very familiar with, and in the realms of the medical profession and the health care delivery systems. There were some good recommendations about prevention.
The hon. member from Calgary sat on that committee for part of the time with me and she agrees with a lot of those recommendations. We should not be looking at the question from a purely financial point of view. Every one of us knows that there is a problem with government spending. We have a deficit that we have to look after.
As a government we have to lead-when I say as a government I mean the whole House of Commons-in pressing the health care system in this country to come into the latter part of the 20th century. We have to talk about prevention. We have to talk about community clinics. We have to talk about making our population healthier, thus costing us less money in the long run.
We should not be putting the cart before the horse and talking about things like user pay or private insurance companies vis-a-vis the public system. Those matters will push us into a situation similar to the United States, where again I say 96 million people do not have the benefit of the kind of medical care and medical treatment that we have.
I say in closing that this bill has disastrous implications for my own province, for my region and for this country as a whole. We have to realize that one of the things that keeps us together are those traditions in education and health care which are sacrosanct to the vast majority of Canadians.
For the federal government to back off from those commitments, to start withdrawing in a significant way the funding for those programs, is a betrayal of trust. It is a contribution to the break-up of this country.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Portage -Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to participate in this debate, but I have a question for the hon. member for Halifax.
It is encouraging always to see a member stand up and defend her province as a major contributor to this country. I think we will all admit that the province of Nova Scotia, through its educational institutions, has been a major contributor. It is nice to see the member stand in her place and defend her province and its right to continue that wonderful tradition.
It would be somewhat helpful if the hon. member would actually look at the facts of the particular transfers that take place to her province. I would like to remind her and all those who listen here today that if she looked at the figures, the over-all growth at an annual rate of 5.6 per cent since 1984-85 to this day is not a negative growth; it is a positive growth; it is additional moneys to her province every given year since 1984 at a rate today which is significantly higher than inflation. She will admit, as her party did, that inflation has been wrestled to the ground and clearly, we are all happy about that.
Look at the other facts. Her province has received the highest increase in the fiscal years 1991-92 to 1992-93 of the equalization payments of 11 per cent. For goodness' sake, there is no restriction for her provincial government to use these moneys toward program financing such as education. All levels of governments, we will admit, have cash flow problems, but to suggest that this government is responsible for less moneys going to education is purely ridiculous and nonsense.
In excess of $1 billion is flowing to the province on equalization alone this year, the highest increase compared to any other province. This government clearly did not see that the province should have received less. The hon. member's argument should be with her province because it could reroute a good part of this additional money.
If you look at the facts, the moneys from this government of Canada count for 43 per cent of all of Nova Scotia's revenues, not insignificant, for a total of $2, 000 per capita, per year, this year. That is 55 per cent higher than the national average.
With all due respect to the province, and we all think it has great places of learning, how can she stand in her place and suggest that this government is at fault when it is the provincial government of Nova Scotia?
March 19, 1992


Mary Catherine Clancy: Mr. Speaker, it is with a certain amount of mournful feeling that I reply to the hon. member from Portage-Interlake. Even the devil can quote Scripture.
It has been, shall we say, an activity of the federal government to constantly bring up the figures and say: "Look, we are giving you x number more dollars than we gave you last year". Perhaps if I explain this very slowly, my hon. friend will catch my drift.
What has happened with the universities in Nova Scotia and with health care are not just raises in inflation. I am sure everyone of us would hope that universities are not static institutions. Neither are health care institutions. Things grow, they increase, they attempt to improve and costs rise. Even without those changes in the development of programs larger number of students, et cetera, which have outstripped the inflation rate and the rate of increase to the province of Nova Scotia, you also have long-term capital costs which are not figured into the statistics that my hon. colleague represents.
The Sir Charles Tupper Building in Halifax, which is the home of Dalhousie Medical School, has major problems requiring major renovations. The magnificent fund-raising effort that went forward from the university and helped to build the fire-devastated Dalhousie Law School, which is now finished, also has ongoing problems. There are hundreds of people going in and out of buildings every day. There are repairs, there are upkeeps, all of which are not figured into the calculations.
On top of that, we have the whole question of increases over inflation vis-a-vis increases due to actual costs. In general, the rising costs of universities outside these other points I have mentioned also outstrip inflationary levels.
I would like to know, given that the hon. member comes from one of the western provinces which receives transfer payments, if the government of Manitoba is equally happy with the cuts in these particular areas. My hon. colleague from Winnipeg says no.
As to my argument with the premier of Nova Scotia, my party in Nova Scotia is doing everything it can with the greatest of alacrity to change the government in
Government Orders
Nova Scotia and the problems will be significantly less under a new government.
When that happens there will be more voices added to mine, my colleague from South West Nova and the other four Liberal MPs from Nova Scotia who stand and vociferously defend our position and attack the position of the government with regard to the cuts to Established Programs Financing. My hon. colleague will hear those voices loud and clear for many years to come. A grand tradition not just of education, not just of health care, but equally of liberalism is re-established in an absolutely impressive way in the province of Nova Scotia to join the other Atlantic provinces of New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island.


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, just before I present some ideas with respect to what I think is a very important piece of legislation, I want to say to my colleague, who was making more of a political speech, that I was trying to debate some straight facts.
The numbers were not reduced. We did not cut back the numbers transferred to her province. They went up, and in the particular EPF area, although not as high as the hon. member would have liked, they went from $680 million to $684 million. That is not a cutback. That is exactly the opposite. It is an increase.
Members opposite cannot chide the fact that these figures are correct. It should not be suggested to anybody in this country that when you go up $4 million it is a cutback. No fancy words will change that.
In this of second reading debate of Bill C-60, which amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, let me say that I find this bill to be very promising. I know there is some scepticism by members opposite but I would like to explain what it proposes to do.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: A bunch of broken promises.


Felix Holtmann: It involves the renewal by this government of the equalization program which earlier addresses from all sides of the House correctly recognized as the cornerstone of the Canadian fiscal federalism.

March 19, 1992
Government Orders
We have not taken our responsibilities and walked away from what we all consider to be a very important issue.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: You have shirked them completely.


Felix Holtmann: The member says we have shirked them. I have just talked about the billions of dollars going into this program, and that is shirking. To the ladies and gentlemen who watch the opposition from time to time in this House, this bill does exactly the opposite as was suggested. It does renew what we intended to do, and that is to assist provinces which are far less affluent and far less able than others that are very industrious, such as Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. It concerns some transfers which we agree need to be done.
The renewal follows more than a 20-month consultation with the provinces at both official and ministerial levels. We have engaged in significant consultation on the preparation of this bill. It was not done totally in-house by the Minister of Finance. There was a lot of consultation and it took a long time. We have what is generally an agreement, although the opposition members will scream and yell, as they do every day, that the Government of Canada has not contributed enough money.
As long as I have been here, since 1984, it has never been enough money. They always have demanded that the government indebt itself further for this particular program. Our Minister of Finance has taken a most reasonable approach without significant cutbacks to continue what we as Canadians feel is a very important part of our Constitution.
I believe hon. members will recognize that it was important to get the equalization renewal right. Now it is important to get it done. Our very real deadline of March 31, when the current five-year program expires, tells us that this particular bill will and shall go through.
This bill also proposes to confirm that the government has the authority to enter into agreements with the provinces to improve and simplify tax administration in this country. There is no argument, I am sure, from any member of this House that the taxation system does need revamping because it can be extremely cumbersome. The bill will therefore facilitate co-operation between federal and provincial governments in mutual
administration and enforcement of each other's taxes, and will simplify the payment of taxes for taxpayers and government.
Let us talk about equalization, which the hon. member from Halifax made a major statement about, concerning how it affects her particular region. Honourable members will be aware that the commitments of equalization payments which are enshrined in section 32(2) of the Constitution exists so as to enable provincial governments to provide reasonable comparable levels of public service at reasonable comparable levels of taxation.
This is paramount as a country that wants to stay economically sound and allow opportunities to exist from coast to coast and within the territories. I believe that our commitment to continue in the way we have demonstrates in a very formidable way that we are prepared to continue that to the benefit of Canadians.
The benefits of equalization programs flow to the less wealthy provinces and it is therefore the most progressive of major transfers to the provinces.
In 1992-93 the government will provide about $8.5 billion in equalization payments to less wealthy provinces. To anyone watching this today on TV, that is a huge amount of money at a time of recession, which we are hopefully now moving out of. It is not a lesser amount, but a greater amount than was previously given to the provinces in this program.
Let us take a look at my province, for an example. The member for Halifax mentioned her province. I am not going to stand up and say that our province would not have liked to have received a little more. I see my colleague from Winnipeg is likely going to jump up and ask why his province did not receive more. He will say that I, as a Manitoban, should be demanding more from this government. I am also a member from the province of Manitoba who sees common sense apply, and not the attitude of grabbing the money and leaving the deficit to somebody else or to our children. We want common sense to apply. The Manitoba government, by the way, does not fare too badly under the present arrangement as proposed by this bill.
Our growth rate was 6 per cent since 1984-85. We will expect to get this year $1.9 billion into the provincial coffers, which is 40 per cent of all of Manitoba's revenue. The federal government plays a major role in the
March 19, 1992

finances and the activities of the province of Manitoba. It is expected to exceed $1,750 per capita this year.
Our equalization growth rate will be 9.8 per cent. That is not quite as high as the province of Nova Scotia, but very significant. When you compare the three transfers that will take place on the EPF and the Canada Assistance Plan, we are looking at 5.1 per cent, well above the inflationary rate.
There is no doubt that provinces are equally responsible for providing education and health care. It is not the federal government alone that is involved in this.
We all have deficits in the provinces as a result of a bit of a difficulty in our financial activities across this great land. Other countries do, we all recognize that, and we are striving very hard to bring back greater employment.
We have some other political parties hovering around the countryside that would like to reduce the amount of government intervention by 15 per cent. The Reform Party would do that. Now the opposition members should be standing on their feet. If we take 15 per cent away from the equalization payments to the provinces, I suspect we might have civil war.
That is the fear because this party that is going to save everyone in western Canada, the Reform Party, is advocating major reductions in spending by the federal government and this I am sure would be one of them.
When we see what 15 per cent does, hon. members in this House will clearly admit that our growth of 5 per cent, 6 per cent and in one case, 8 per cent, is not a reduction in transfer payments. It is our commitment toward this very important part of our federalism which I can assure members we have no indication of discontinuing. We do ask in a very reasonable and consultative way that the provinces also look very closely at their budgets and their programs. They have to contribute equally with the federal government to programs for which the funding is short.
There is no argument that there is less money coming in when you have a recession. There are demands on money all the time. As we know, none can deny it, even the wealthy province of Alberta finds itself with deficits. At one time it had such a tremendous growth in its heritage.
Government Orders
We are living in the real world. Those who jump up to condemn this government on this issue are not telling the facts and are not responsible to all Canadians when it comes to looking after the finances of this land. Canadians are telling us more and more to spend less. This present government, very wisely by the minister, reduced some of our personal income taxes because it is an incentive to work hard and maybe save some money.
When we look at these figures, I would really ask members opposite to consider that we have acted very responsibly. The members opposite are prepared to jump up and say: "You have cut these poor people out of education and you have cut them out of health and they cannot get a bed". That is not the case at all.
This government has lived within its fiscal framework, recognizing that we are in a downturn economy, hopefully to move it upward. We have interest rates at a reasonable level, albeit they bounced up one-quarter or one-half a per cent and mortgages went up three-quarters of a per cent and everybody panicked across the way. I think it has to be realized and demonstrated that we have inflation, which is very damaging to any economy, at a level which is acceptable. We have interest rates still at reasonable rates. When we compare the last 15 years, we have them at very reasonable rates. There is an indication that the budget has created housing starts far exceeding what we expected. Opposition members will jump up and say it is not enough. We have the right thing going with regard to this piece of legislation.
I heard the Leader of the Opposition state that we should deficit further for some short term gain in employment.
I have seen opposition in government and when it deficits, not by a few billion, but by many billions of dollars to get the economy going, it is only a short-term gain and a long-term pain for all the future people of this country, the young people. That attitude just does not wash today. The days when we have major extensions to our deficit to try to persuade the economy are not in the works any more. Canadians will not tolerate it.
Our party does not intend to raise the deficit at any kind of an alarming rate as it was done in the past. That is not the way of the future, it is not the way you run any business and it is not the way you run a country. I would like to see our country remain strong and remain a most desirable place to live, as was expressed by the United

March 19, 1992
Government Orders
Nations. It is not deficit spending that will allow this to happen.
With those few words I hope that I have brought some sense to the argument on Bill C-60. I want my colleagues to know that we can take some criticism from time to time, but for goodness' sake do not stand up and say: "You should throw more money at it. It is not enough. It is too little too late." I have heard every story going in here; it is always too little too late. We still have a fairly good economy. We have a lot of unemployment, there is no doubt about that, and it is serious, but we believe that this too shall pass if we stick to the way our finance minister has set out for us. It may need adjustment from time to time, but it is not a Liberal adjustment. It will never be a Liberal adjustment. It may be a Conservative adjustment.


Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to pose a few questions to my colleague.
The member started by saying that the intention of his government is to assist provinces. The government, over the last many years, seven years at least, has failed to assist provinces. If provinces had been assisted there would be no cry from provinces about the actions of this government. The facts speak for themselves.
The hon. member then indicated that this is a renewal and that the equalization provision is enshrined in section 32(2) of the Constitution. Is he telling us that he can refuse to proceed with the equalization payment? Is he telling us that the renewal of the equalization payment is a gift from this government? I submit that this government has no choice. It has to proceed with the equalization payment because it is enshrined in our Canadian Constitution. Do not give a false impression that this is a gift from this government. It has not done enough. That is the issue at this time.
The member was speaking about common sense. Common sense tells us that we should take into account excellent studies done by the Senate of Canada. The Senate study of January 1991 on the poverty issue indicated that if you spent some $5 billion today to help the poor children and youth in the country you would be able to recoup some $33 billion two decades later because we will be able to prevent some school dropouts across the country.
The hon. member from the government side would say that is deficit spending. I do not think he understands the difference between deficit spending and investment. In both instances it may well be that you may have to borrow money, but deficit spending is when you spend it on something out of which no good comes at the end, whereas investment is when you borrow and out of it comes excellent things, including a profit, a return.
The Senate of Canada has told us that if we spend $5 billion today, in 20 years we will be able to recoup $33 billion. By any common sense definition that will be an investment.
I would like to ask the hon. member a couple of questions. The transfer payments, the Established Programs Financing, includes both transfers for health and education. Could the hon. member indicate to the House why combine the two and not have them separate? Would he indicate to the House what the four ingredients are necessary for economic recovery that his government has failed to do?


Felix Holtmann: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to the hon. member from Winnipeg. I would like to answer his last question first.
The blueprint for economic recovery is, quite frankly, to put your financial house in order; try to get the government of this country out of its woes of debt upon debt. We have had some real growth years in those eight years. We have had great employment and we have had great industry activity, far exceeding what happened before.
We now have program expenditures in control with revenues, and that is how we influence the future development of this country. I understand by the member's statement that he is going to support the legislation because it gives the transfer payments which he says are in the Constitution. How would he dare vote against his Constitution if this is what this bill does?
It enshrines something in the Constitution. It gives Manitoba a 5.1 per cent growth rate. I am glad to hear today that he is going to support this legislation because it is going to put money in the province of Manitoba. It is going to put money in every province in this country through the payments.
March 19, 1992

Otherwise he would be in contravention of the Constitution. I would not want the hon. member from Winnipeg to get that crazy idea.


Mr.   Brian@: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening very attentively to the debate.
I was concerned about the degree of partisanship that seems to have entered the debate on such an important issue as transfer payments and meeting the very important needs of our society.
I would like to ask the hon. member if he recalls, during the recent first ministers' conference, when the Liberal premier of New Brunswick indicated that there should be a new structure for health care servicing in his province and in provinces right across the country.
He was indicating that it was time to recognize the fiscal limitations on governments at all levels. In a recent newspaper article, the headlines indicated that the NDP government in Ontario has recognized the need to limit expenditures in the area of health care as well.
The old ways of political partisanship on issues as important as transfer payments have proven to be less than productive. As Liberal premiers in New Brunswick and NDP premiers in Ontario now recognize, deficit spending and the deficit way of operating the budget compromise the capacity of future generations to meet the needs of society.
There seems to be some misinformation here, and I would just like the hon. member to clarify. Has there been an increase in recent years? Will there continue to be an increase? Or has, as some of the members opposite suggest, there been a decrease or a cut?


Felix Holtmann: I would also like to comment on behalf of my colleague on this particular issue.
Let us get it absolutely straight. The transfers of moneys from the Government of Canada to those in these programs have increased.
The argument being made opposite is that they have not increased to the level we would have liked to increase them to, which would obviously have driven our deficit that much higher. That is the argument. It has increased.
Government Orders
Let me say something and my colleague opposite from Winnipeg would agree. It is not nice being in a have not province. I would like Manitoba to be a have province. I resent being called a have not province. We have great things going for us in Manitoba. We get some great benefits in the province of Manitoba through these programs and so do the maritime provinces and so does Quebec.
The idea of sometimes being self-sustaining as a province or all-contributing to the benefit of this country is what I work toward as a member of Parliament from Manitoba. I sometimes think that when some provinces like Alberta and B.C. make some contributions through their tax structures that end up in other provinces it is a Robin Hood scenario.
We should not be ever and ever dependent on transfers from provinces. We should somehow find ways of allowing us to somehow grow and flourish. If there is any policy left in this country which favours development in different areas, that is what I would like. We live in a part of Canada that should allow us to grow and function no differently than Alberta, for example.
We may not have all the natural resources, but I will say that the goal here is certainly one to use these transfers in an effective way. It may not be the amount we would like to spend. We have to live within the means. The statement always said is: "Live within the means of your income". Governments have all lived beyond the means of their incomes. We have to live as a country within the means of the prosperity of this land. If it is not as prosperous as we like to spend, then we have to realize that and adjust.
I think we all agree that it is an important program to continue.


Mr. Jim Karpoff (Surrey North):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to be able to rise and join in this debate on Bill C-60.
To take a look at it one has to put it in the context of what has been happening in this country in the last number of years.
First of all, one has to look at the economic situation that this country has found itself in and how the federal government has prepared for the economic downturn that it precipitated.

March 19, 1992
Government Orders
Prior to the country going into a recession, the dramatic rise in unemployment insurance demands and the dramatic rise in demands on income assistance, the federal government changed the rules on unemployment insurance. It made sure that it was no longer responsible for putting any money into unemployment insurance.
The government started its off-loading. That is the key to this government; it is off-loading its responsibilities on others.
In the unemployment insurance field, it off-loaded its responsibility by pulling out any federal government contribution from the unemployment fund and off-loading it on employees and employers.
That has had a devastating effect on many small businesses. They were not in a position to function as well when the economic downturn came along. One wonders whether the federal government did not anticipate this.
It also cut back on the eligibility for unemployment insurance, meaning that many people who would have qualified are now dependent on income assistance and are going to the provinces. This drives up income assistance costs of which the federal government is paying 50 per cent under the Canada Assistance Plan.
The federal government took care of this. It simply said in the three wealthiest provinces, which have well over 50 per cent of those receiving income assistance, that it would limit its responsibility by putting a cap on the Canada Assistance Plan to 5 per cent.
The federal government talks very much about the need for economic competitiveness and the need for education. It takes a stand, however, that has cut back on the transfer payments to the provinces for post-secondary education, and at the same time has cut $200 million out of the Canadian job strategy program.
This is the context in which Bill C-60 comes before this House. The federal government has systematically off-loaded its responsibilities on the provinces, on to employers and on to employees. The impact on the provinces has been horrendous. It is worthwhile to spend a few minutes taking a look at each of these areas in terms of the impacts.
I will refer specifically to my own province of British Columbia. In the current fiscal year, the B.C. government is facing a deficit of $1.7 billion, of which $1.1
billion is directly the result of cutbacks of federal transfer payments.
The cap on the Canada Assistance Plan this year alone will cost the province of British Columbia $156 million. One has to remember that these are the funds being transferred to the provinces to help the most disadvantaged, those who not only have lost their jobs but who no longer qualify for unemployment insurance. This is the money that is transferred to the provinces to help children, not only poor children, but children who are abused and neglected. This is the government that talks very nicely about fulfilling its obligations to the UN charter on the rights of the child, while at the same time cuts back the funds to the provinces which improve the standard of living and protect children. That is one program.
The other program is EPF. The cutbacks on EPF were started, not by this government, but by the previous Liberal administration. When block funding was brought in there was a formula. It had nothing to do with expenditures. The federal government was to transfer money to the provinces based on the growth, the GNP and the growth in population. It was not based on expenditures or on any mythical amount based on the growth of the economy. It could afford to make those transfers.
In 1982, there was a forced attack on it by the Liberal government in the elimination of the 2 per cent tax point transfer. Then there was the six and five program. Then the federal government brought in limiting the escalation to 3 per cent and finally freezing it.
From 1992 to 1995, the province of British Columbia will lose $6.8 billion in transfer payments under this. Out of that, $2.6 billion is the result of Liberal cuts and the balance, about $4.2 billion, is the result of cuts by the federal Tories.
What is this money used for? It is to sustain our health care system at a time when the provinces experience not only escalating costs in health care, but increases in population, particularly British Columbia, because of the inward migration of people and the immigration into Canada.
It is also the money for post-secondary education, at a time when everyone knows that in order for Canada to be economically viable we must increase the number and quality of our graduates from our post-secondary educational facilities.
March 19, 1992

The federal government seems not to understand that we are in the middle of a debate on national unity and one of the things that holds this country together are our social programs such as health care, Canada Assistance Plan, income assistance. It has been the leadership of the federal government that has made for a national program. It is one of the things that makes us quite distinct from the United States.
The United States is mainly a Balkanization of states with varied programs that are not applicable as a right of an American citizen. In the States there are many Americans in every state who have no health care coverage at all. The Americans are increasingly looking at Canada for developing a national health care system that would provide coverage to everyone. This is ironic because at the same time we have a federal government that is reneging on its responsibilities by increasingly pulling out of the funding and leadership role in our health care.
There are other areas in which the federal government has pulled back in terms of the equalization or transfer payments to the provinces. Some of them are not large programs, but they have a significant impact on each of the provinces. The federal cuts have raised British Columbia's costs in the farm income stabilization program, crop insurance, economic development, reforestation, policing, social housing and correctional facilities. The federal government has again off-loaded its responsibility on to the provinces. These costs this year amount to $100 million.
What we have is a systematic attempt by this federal government to say it is not responsible for social programs, for the services to people across this countiy, that it is simply going to off-load these responsibilities on the provinces.
At any time in our history that would be regrettable. At this time, when we are debating unity and the holding of this country together, it is not only regrettable, it is downright malicious and almost criminal because it has the impact of making Canadians ask: "Why are we involved in a federal state if we have a federal government that can unilaterally pull out of its obligations financially and in terms of leadership?"
We hear the government members get up and say: "We had no choice. It is the debt; it is the deficit. We had
Government Orders
no choice". I would like them to consider a few facts around the debt and the deficit. This government has been in power for over eight years, and if it has not had the economic competence to deal with the debt and the deficit in that period, I am sure it does not have the nerve to ask Canadians to give it another four or five years to try to deal with it.
When the government came into power, the debt was at about $150 to $160 billion. It is now well in excess of $425 billion. It tries to make out that the debt and the deficit are the result of program spending. That is simply not true. Program spending has accounted for about 9 per cent of that debt. The biggest cause of it has been this government's pigheaded and firm belief in a high interest rate policy.
We see the government, even in the last couple of weeks, using any excuse it can to justify driving interest rates back up. That has directly hurt this government's ability to service the debt. If interest rates had been an average of 4 per cent lower, on $400 billion that is a $16 billion a year saving. That would go a long way in dealing with the deficit that we are now incurring.
The government seems to say that it has no choice. Certainly if interest rates fell the Canadian dollar would fall. That is true. I would concur with that.
I happen to be from a province that would be quite happy to see an 80-cent Canadian dollar. We are an exporting province. We would be quite happy to see our lumber industry flourishing with a reduced dollar. We would be much more competitive with our exports to the Asian market and our exports to the United States.
The other major contributor to the debt that this government keeps harping on are tax concessions to the wealthy and to the corporations. The share of taxes corporations pay has steadily dropped over the last number of years. It used to be about 50/50. It is now down to the point at which corporations pay about 20 per cent of the revenues.
We have given tax loophole after tax loophole to the wealthy. The $100,000 capital gain is costing the federal government, to the provinces, $2.5 billion a year. The bulk of these lost tax revenues goes to those making over $100,000 a year, the very high income earners.

March 19, 1992
Government Orders
We have changed our system of RRSPs. We have made it so that the person earning less than $20,000 has had his ability to contribute to an RRSP reduced, while a person earning $86,000 a year has had his ability to contribute to an RRSP and avoid taxes increased dramatically. This is the kind of approach that this government has taken to the deficit and the debt.
My conclusion is that the government has deliberately run up the deficit. It has deliberately run up the debt. It did not take steps when it was elected in 1984 to bring the deficit under control or to bring the debt under control. It simply escalated the tax write-offs for the wealthy and the corporations. It simply drove up the interest rates to keep our Canadian dollar high. It appears that was part of the free trade deal. It made an agreement with the United States to keep it competitive compared to us by keeping our dollar high. I can only come to the conclusion that it has done this in order to attack social programs. The government philosophically does not support the Canadian concept of a social safety net, of national social programs and national leadership in this area. Unfortunately, by doing so it is starting to destroy the very fabric that is Canada.
This is the background that must be taken into consideration when one looks at Bill C-60. It is an act concerning the transfer of payments from the federal government to the provinces. It has to be taken in the view of this government's record. It has taken the stand that it will not be responsible. It will off-load its responsibility for post-secondary education, for health care, for corrections, on to the provinces. It will off-load its responsibility to the unemployed on to employers and employees. It will off-load its responsibility for income assistance recipients and children on to the provinces through the Canada Assistance Plan.
It is because of this that Canadians have lost faith in this federal government.


Mr.   Brian@: I was listening to some of the rhetoric from my hon. colleague in the New Democratic Party, particularly with regard to the accusation that the Government of Canada has deliberately increased the deficit. This is consistent with other disinformation spread by members of the NDP. The deficit in 1984 was nearly at the $40 billion level, and as
he should know, it has been reduced now by almost $10 billion to around the $30 billion level.
In spite of the rhetoric, I do want to acknowledge that he and other members of his party may be speaking on behalf of a sincere interest in the present generation. However, members of the Progressive Conservative Party not only feel a responsibility to members of this generation in terms of meeting the social needs of Canadians, but we also feel a very serious responsibility toward looking after the needs of future generations.
I see in the House of Commons today some very young people. Members of this party are concerned about ensuring that future governments of Canada will have the capacity to meet the needs of future generations. I am concerned that the "live for today" attitude of the NDP and other members of the opposition seems to neglect the future and neglect the ability of future governments to respond to social needs.
Assuming that we would do what the socialists recommend, spend out of control, as we have seen the socialist government in the province of Ontario do, what would he do for future generations in terms of meeting their needs?


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: I wish the member would go down to the food banks today and ask future generations, two-thirds of which are children in the Atlantic region, what their future holds for them. When they are hungry, when they are not able to go to school because they are not properly fed, is that the future you are talking about?
It is very nice to say to the person who cannot get into a university, who cannot afford to go to post-secondary education: "Your future looks good". Where is their future?
The deficit and debt are serious problems. They are problems that this government had the responsibility to deal with in 1984. It has shown, has demonstrated for eight consecutive years, that it is incompetent, that it cannot eradicate the deficit, that it cannot start to deal with the debt. The total debt in this country has gone from $160 billion to $420 billion. Even the Tories must understand all that is happening is that they are no longer paying their way, not quite as badly as the Liberals, but they have done nothing. They have not wiped out the deficit, they have not brought it under control, and they have simply off-loaded their responsi-
March 19, 1992

bilities on to the provinces. They have simply off-loaded them on the poor.
What have they done? They have helped their corporate tax friends. They have given tax break after tax break to their corporate tax friends.
The fact is that the average Canadian family with an income between $25,000 and $75,000 per year is paying in real terms $1,800 more a year in taxes. Those earning over $100,000 are only paying about half of that in increased taxes.
This is the philosophy of this government. Do not talk to me about what you are doing for the future generation. You have put the future generation in debt and you have put it in debt hungry.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed hearing the hon. member speak about lowering interest rates and following the policies advocated by my leader. It was encouraging.
Ele also spoke in his speech about the virtues of taxation of corporations. I am sure he had in his mind the big bad banks. I wonder if he could tell us if it is still his party's policy to nationalize Canada's chartered banks.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: I belong to one of the growing financial institutions in this country, the Surrey Metro Credit Union. It is now the second largest credit union in the country. It is community owned. It is a co-operative, it is socialist movement, the same as the Vancity Credit Union, which is also one of the biggest and fastest growing financial institutions.
At this point we have to bring in fair taxation. The national banks have not been paying their fair share of taxes. We in the New Democratic Party strongly believe in fair taxes.
I can assure the member that when we are the government after the next federal election we will bring in legislation to make sure that the banks and other multinational corporations pay their fair share of taxes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: It being 1.33 p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
The House took recess at 1.33 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I call on the Minister of Veterans Affairs to reassure the veterans of Canada that the benefits and programs his department provides will continue as long as there are needy and disabled Canadians who need them.
Seventy-five years ago the Prime Minister of Canada promised the veterans of World War I that they would be cared for by a grateful nation. Today there is fear among the veteran population that this government is planning to abandon them and abandon the department in the name of cost efficiency.
I understand that at least 250 positions at Veterans Affairs Canada will be declared surplus under the work force adjustment program in the coming year. I further understand that the department is undertaking joint studies with Health and Welfare about the future and about amalgamation.
It is time for the government and the minister to make a clear commitment to the veterans of Canada.


CHLOROFLUOROCARBONS
Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the environment minister has chosen to follow my suggestion made last week in this House that Canada implement a ban on CFCs by 1995.
I remind the minister that it is Canada and not the provinces that must set regulations for CFC recovery. It is Canada that will negotiate changes to the Montreal protocol this coming November.
With alarming new evidence that the ozone layer is disappearing faster than anyone expected, we are in a state of environmental emergency. Now is the time for the federal government to bring in national standards for the recovery of CFCs.
Almost six months ago I suggested this government examine the CFC-sucking vampire units. With an estimated recovery market worth more than $2 billion, recovering used CFCs would create jobs in our failing

March 19, 1992
economy as well as save the ozone and protect people's health.
This government has too little courage. Instead of allocating federal resources in Canadian technology that could be exported to the rest of the world, it takes timid baby steps when giant strides are necessary.


ST. CATHARINES
Mr. Ken Atkinson (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, the recent announcement by General Motors of job cuts was a severe blow to the people of St. Catharines.
The immediate reaction to the news was naturally one of anger, resentment and anxiety about the future of the city as well as a temptation to place blame for the situation. While understandable, these emotions are not going to help our community.
Within days of the announcement there was a meeting of business people, labour leaders and individuals from all levels of government representing the three main political parties. The tone of the meeting was one of commitment to co-operate in trying to find solutions to our economic situation.
It is unfortunate that it took a problem of this magnitude to get everyone to work together, but clearly that is how we will succeed.
St. Catharines has many significant assets, but easily the best is its people. I am confident the citizens of the garden city will prosper in the face of this setback. I know we will all continue to work together to ensure our future success.


BILL C-13
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, over the past four days, the Bloc Quebecois has been struggling to amend Bill C-13, which runs directly counter to Quebec's best interest.
Yesterday, the Quebec National Assembly passed a unanimous resolution condemning this bill. Today, Premier Bourassa, the Quebec Manufacturers' Association
and the Quebec Chamber of Commerce are asking federal MPs from Quebec to kill this bill.
Here is a chance for the Conservative MPs from Quebec to fight for their homeland instead of for then-party. They must refuse to destroy Quebec's economy and to personify domineering federalism.


FRASER RIVER DEBRIS CONTROL BOARD
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the commitment by the Department of Transport to continue federal funding of the Fraser River log trap located in the heart of my constituency.
Some 11 kilometres up the Fraser River from Agassiz in my riding of Fraser Valley East the log trap clears debris from the Fraser River ensuring the safety of river traffic downstream.
There was some concern that the federal commitment to this operation would lapse. I joined my B.C. colleagues and with much perseverance we persuaded the Department of Transport to reconsider its commitment to the Fraser River Debris Control Board. As a result, the $180,000 annual federal contribution to the Fraser River Debris Control Board will be maintained for the next five years.
The debris trap collects 100,000 cubic metres of debris each year and contributes to the bulk of the board's operations. I trust that this addresses any concerns as to the federal government's commitment to navigational safety on the Fraser River.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton -Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, how insensitive and incoherent has our immigration policy become? And how unreasonable the decisions of our department of immigration and its refugee determination board? Their decisions deal with people as just so many ciphers, and Canada's reputation for understanding and humanity is suffering as a result.
The plight of the Rees family is a case in point. Reran and Gale Rees have been ideal parents of an ideal Canadian family since their arrival in this country in June 1988. Reran became a valued part of the production
March 19, 1992

team of CFM-TV, and Gale a nurse. Both are community minded volunteers. Four of their children are exemplary students as these letters of support indicate.
However their family's claim for refugee status has been denied four years later. Worse, the department has issued notices and made travel plans for all but the youngest member of the Rees family, a Canadian born two-year old. What does the minister propose to do to advance the interests of this young Canadian who will be deprived of his parents? Is it not time for the minister of immigration to become involved in the issue?


Ms. Barbara Greene (Don Valley North):: Mr. Speaker, on March 18 yet another terrorist attack was carried out by enemies of Israel, this time against the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires. More than 11 people were killed and over 130 wounded.
Terrorist attacks such as this do not intimidate the Jewish people. They only serve to identify the perpetrators as inhuman cowards, consumed with blind sadistic malevolence.
The Jewish community and friends of the Jewish community once again feel the searing pain of racist acts of hate and once again experience a sense of revulsion and renewed solidarity against such acts and such people.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg Transcona):: Mr. Speaker, for some time I and many other Canadians, including members of this House, have been concerned about the plight of Christine Lamont and David Spencer.
Recently the archbishop of Sao Paulo has written to the Canadian government, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, urging the minister to do that which is necessary in order for these two young people to be released from the terrible predicament they are in, and that is to make a formal request for their expulsion from Brazil.
The government has yet to do this. It is a strange situation where we have almost a consensus in Brazil, and particularly on the part of the church, that these people are innocent and they do not deserve what is being meted out to them in a foreign country. Yet it is their own government which refuses to act.
I hope the Prime Minister will intervene, as it has been suggested he might, and make sure that this expulsion order is given and given soon so that these young people might be returned to Canada.


VERY HIGH SPEED TRAIN
Mr. Marcel R. TVemblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, the Quebec business community feels an act of faith is needed to make the construction and operation of a Quebec-Windsor very high speed railway line a reality and many are those who have acted already.
The office for the economic development of greater Quebec has been given the mandate to monitor this project closely. To this end, the office thought it would be advisable to join the very high speed train service benefits office to allow its members to gain access to strategic information. It will also encourage essential alliances for technology transfers, business linkage as well as the establishment of new firms to take advantage of the vitality of our region. It is with that in mind, that the Quebec urban community and the city of Quebec have decided to sponsor the very high speed train service benefits office. This project will be a determining factor in our social and economic development as we enter the 21st century.


PEACE BRIDGE
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, I have received two letters re special clearance lanes and their success at the Peace Bridge in Fort Erie. The one from Mayor Teal in part reads:
As spring break approaches, you will no doubt recall the grid lock situation that occurred on the bridge one year ago. The changes that were put in place in response to that event and to the traffic problems being experienced on the bridge have been extremely successful.
The second is from the bridge authority and reads:
We would like to take this opportunity to thank you and the federal Government of Canada for their initiatives in instituting the "Special Lanes" at the Peace Bridge last year. From our perspective, the implementation and continued operation of the "Special Lanes" had a definite positive impact on the movement of traffic on our facility into Canada-From our perspective, the positive results continue to

March 19, 1992
enhance the economy of the Town of Fort Erie and the Niagara Region.


COMMENTS OF MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, three months ago the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans made comments which were insulting and offensive to women at a fund-raising dinner on Prince Edward Island.
I, along with other groups and individuals from my province, wrote to the Prime Minister that month urging him to elicit an apology from the minister for the remarks. To date no response has been received.
Last week we acknowledged International Women's Day and the contributions women have made to our society. I feel the least the Prime Minister could do is to distance himself from the minister's comments and demand an apology.
To do less is to demonstrate that this Prime Minister is not prepared to demonstrate a serious commitment to ensuring that women are treated with dignity, respect and equality.
Let us see some leadership on this issue. Let us see if the message put forward by International Women's Day has actually been received by the government.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mrs. Edna Anderson (Simcoe Centre):: Mr. Speaker, Canada is in the forefront of the battle against ozone depletion.
Last August the government launched a $25 million green plan initiative to accelerate the domestic regulatory control program. Canada has reduced its consumption of CFCs by 50 per cent since 1986 and is committed to eliminate their production and import into this country no later than 1997.
The government is also working with the provinces to develop a comprehensive national action plan to promote the conservation, recovery and recycling of ozone depleting chemicals. Also the government will provide
Canadians regular updates on the status of the ozone layer and on implications for the level of the sun's ultraviolet rays.


PENSIONS
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, there was a case in Winnipeg recently where a 58-year old woman was denied a survivor's benefit. Her husband lived with another woman for a year before he died.
The Department of National Health and Welfare ruled that the other woman is entitled to the pension. In this case the man's wife lived with him for 18 years and received nothing. There was no divorce.
Had this happened prior to 1987 and there were contesting applications, the minister of health could have made a judgment on such a situation. Now an individual only has to prove that he or she has lived with another person common law and be entitled to such a pension.
Surely there must be a fairer way of settling things. Not to do so would be a callous disregard this government has shown for Canadian families and this situation in particular.


GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, as was announced earlier this week, Ontarians will soon enjoy a privilege previously known only in the west.
Starting in May, Ontarians will be able to purchase ethanol blend gasolines. Thanks to the forward looking partnership of Sunoco and United Co-Operatives of Ontario-you gotta love those co-operatives, Mr. Speaker-Ontarians will have a whole new market for some of their produce and Ontario consumers will be able to fuel their cars with same ethanol blends already labelled an "environmental choice" product at Mohawk Company pumps across the west.
Hundreds of thousands fewer tonnes of new carbon pulled up from underground and introduced into the biosphere every year and 30 per cent lower carbon monoxide emissions are the boon of ethanol fuels.
March 19, 1992

Congratulations, Sunoco and United Co-Ops of Ontario, and welcome to ethanol fuels, Ontarians.


INTERNATIONAL DAY FOR THE ELIMINATION OF RACIAL DISCRIMINATION
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, Saturday, March 21 is the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
In 1986, Prime Minister Mulroney announced that Canada would participate in the second decade to fight racism and racial discrimination. In 1989, the federal government launched its first national March 21 campaign.
Mr. Speaker, I am proud of what my government has done and the leadership it has shown.
Together with police departments, businesses and unions, educators and academics, municipal or voluntary organizations, broadcasters and many others, we have begun the process of change so that one day, all Canadians can participate fully and on an equal footing in the life of our society, as the Prime Minister said.
Mr. Speaker, I know that all members of this House will agree with me that the sooner that day arrives, the happier and more prosperous all Canadians will be.


SYRIAN JEWS
Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, in 1989 the world watched, tears of joy flowing, as the Berlin wall came tumbling down, bringing with it an end to 50 years of fear and oppression.
Now the world must turn its attention to others in need to a people who are tortured, imprisoned, humiliated and stripped of basic rights and freedoms, the Syrian Jews. Now we must bring down the walls of Syria and free the Syrian Jews from captivity.
President Hafez el-Assad is not immune to pressure. He must know that he can no longer hold 4,000 people hostage in their own country. Nor can he track their every move with secret police or imprison them without charge.
Oral Questions
Let us send a clear message to our government that it must become a link in the armour against anti-Semitism. Our government must add its voice to an international choir, along with the governments of the United States, Japan, Britain, France, the whole world speaking together to Syria. Imagine how strong the voice will be.
We shall attain freedom for the Syrian Jews.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. Today, the women of Canada are relieved, but not because of this government. For the past two years we have seen ministers of this government rise in their places and state unequivocally in this House that the silicone gel breast implant was a safe product. Yet time after time we in the opposition have brought forth the serious safety concerns of the scientific community and the women of Canada who have had these implants.
Can the Acting Prime Minister tell this House today and finally explain why this government has never, never come forward to ban this product in either a preliminary or a final way?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, this morning I circulated a press release which I think summarizes the government's position on the question from the beginning. If you allow me, I would like to read a paragraph which summarizes the government's position from the beginning as well:

"Our main priority remains to be the health of women who have this prosthesis. I have consistently stated that women who have this prosthesis should obtain the best possible medical and scientific information on the health and safety implications of these devices. The independent advisory committee on breast implants chaired by Dr. Cornelia Baynes - "


Mr. Dingwall:: Don't be patronizing.

March 19, 1992
Oral Questions


Benoît Bouchard: Could you listen when I have to deal with a serious issue to Canadians, please.


An hon. member:: It's a long time coming.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. This is the lead question of the hon. member on behalf of the Loyal Opposition. The minister is responding. It is an important question or it would not be the lead question. I ask hon. members to allow the minister to respond.


Benoît Bouchard: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. "The independent advisory committee on breast implants, chaired by Dr. Cornelia Baynes, which was established on February 17, 1992, will help us in making information available. Dow Coming's decision does not change the need for the critical information."
There are three categories of women that we have to serve. The first group is those who have had the breast implant and do not have any problems. If there is any problem, they should be referred to their doctors. Those who have problems with the breast implant should also go to their doctors and make a good decision in light of the information that they can share. The third one is the future of the breast implant. We have a moratorium. I said it will not be back on the market unless I have the assurance there is no problem. I believe my predecessor and I dealt with that issue the best we could. We are trying to do one thing and that is to help Canadian women to make the best decisions.


Beryl Gaffney: To the same minister, Mr. Speaker. After years of repeated requests, the minister finally tabled some documents in the House two days ago. I find it very odd that excluded from the package were four key studies I had already obtained under Access to Information from his own department. I find this is bordering on deception. This is totally unacceptable to me and the members on this side of the House.
Will the minister re-examine the situation carefully and table the full and comprehensive set of documents before the end of this week?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, what I said two days ago, and I repeat today, is that all documentation available in the Department of National Health and Welfare which is
not protected as private information is available and will be available. If there are any documents that my colleague has that were not in the package, it could be that because those documents were already public they were not presented in the package.
I will repeat what I said. If there is any information available in the department which is not protected and I can make it available, I will. As I said, nothing has to be hidden and I never hide any information from Canadians.


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I can understand why the minister is embarrassed about this issue because it is a classic example of a government that has not protected the health of women and continues to put the health of women at risk.
Today in the United States, Dow Coming announced a plan of a $10 million fund to be set up to help the women of the United States, but said in its statement that there would not be a penny for the women of Canada. I ask the minister what specific action he intends to take today to go to the limit to sue Dow Coming to ensure that Canadian women are protected in this very important issue?


Benoît Bouchard: As usual, Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton East is wrong. Dow Coming in Canada said it will respect the commitment it made in terms of research.
Second, the member should know that any surgery or any operation requested by doctors would be covered by the Canadian Health Act. She knows that, but she wants to play politics.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Why, Mr. Speaker, should the Canadian health care system pay for a mistake by Dow Corning that was kept covered up for 20 years?

Mr. Speaker, further to the minister's meeting in February with the group called "I Know", he promised that he was ready to go as far as suing Dow Coming. I therefore ask the minister whether he is prepared to demand for Canadian women the same rights that were announced today for American women. Why a double standard for Canadian women?
March 19, 1992


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Hamilton East has understood nothing, as usual. No action has yet been taken and she has already decided that the government and the health system would pay for it all. The provinces are responsible for applying the system. If they decide to negotiate reimbursement with Dow Coming, it will certainly be in the company's interest to reach agreement with the provinces concerned. But again, all the measures taken in the United States have been taken in Canada, except that the Americans do not have the system of universal health care that we have here in Canada. I am quite prepared, and we have already started to contact the provinces to ensure that this issue is treated equally.
The information about suing is false. I never made a commitment to Ms. Marsolais-Thrdif-although you did not give her name, I am giving it-to prosecute any company whatever.
I said that I would help the "I Know" organization, if it needed help. That is all. That is the information.


Ms. Joy Langan (Mission -Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, if the minister of health and welfare is not prepared to table the documents as the hon. member for Nepean suggested, maybe she would table them for Canadian women on his behalf.
In view of yet another company pulling out of the implant market, I reiterate my call for a judicial inquiry into health and welfare department of medical devices for its handling of the breast implant issue. In the face of the complete failure of leaving the testing of breast implants in the hands of manufacturers, will the minister assure Canadian women that no new implants will come on the Canadian market without government testing for their safety.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I said already that those implants were not available on the Canadian market. I said too that before they could be back on the market, I would need to have the assurance that there is not even a little problem for Canadian women. I believe that is what Canadian women want to know.
Oral Questions
Once again I refer to my colleague and my predecessor. At least I believe she knows what she is talking about. She knows very well. We have had conversations and I have said to her many times that I will not put in danger the health of women in terms of breast implants. That is what we are doing. That is what we will do.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, first of all the hon. minister was not listening. I said new implants. Second, he has talked several times this afternoon about his concern for the health of Canadian women and he in fact consistently endangers the health of Canadian women by his lack of action.
What is the minister going to do for the 150,000 Canadian women who are left with unanswered questions about the safety of their implants, about the safety of their health. Will the minister meet and work with provincial ministers of health to ensure that women breast implantees have the kind of information and the kind of support they need to know they are safe or that they need medical help?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the member asked me what I will do for the 150,000 women who have breast implants. I already said that we are trying to get the best information available through Dr. Cornelia Bayne's committee from the United States and Canada. They will report to me some time in April, and will provide all information they have in terms of the choice that women should make regarding the breast implants they already have, or for those who would like to have those implants.
In terms of the provinces, I have already had three meetings with the ministers from the provinces. On any request, I will do that again. I believe Canadian women know increasingly that I am doing what should be done to protect the health of Canadian women.


Joy Langan: Mr. Speaker, I really do not want to stand here and insult the minister by suggesting that I do not believe that he has done exactly what needs to be done for the health of these women.
Dow Corning not only admitted when the new president took over that there are some problems with these implants, but now Dow Corning has withdrawn the implants from the market and said it will consider recompense in the United States where women do not have access to a medical plan, and in Canada for any

March 19, 1992
Oral Questions
women who do not have protection. Dow Corning will give some recompense to those women for the cost of explantation.
I believe that Dow Coming should repay the Canadian medicare system for any costs associated with explantation or difficulties as a result of the implants. Will the minister discuss with the provincial ministers the requirement of Dow Corning and Surgitek to reimburse Canada's medicare system for any costs incurred because of failed implants or for explantation?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, the member knows that unlike what is going on in the United States, we have a medical system in Canada which pays for all costs relating to an operation requested by a doctor. It is what we will do for those who believe that with the agreement of the doctor the breast implant operation has to take place.
In the future, any negotiations with Dow Coming will have to be made with the provinces. It cannot be at the federal level because we do not provide the money.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Sue them. Who put it on the market?


Joy Langan: But you will not initiate it.


Benoît Bouchard: If the provinces want co-operation and terms from the federal level for discussions with the companies, of course we will be there. But we will wait, if she wants, for this reality. It is not here yet but we will follow the case. The provinces have already said to me that in many cases they want to collaborate. This is exactly what we will do.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.
For months we have been asking the government about developments in the free trade talks between Canada, the United States and Mexico, and we have yet
to get an answer. We do not know the government's objectives. We do not know whether the government has done any impact studies and we do not yet know what the Canadian or North American content for cars will be.
I wish the minister would tell me what he has to hide from Canadians. Don't Canadians have a right to know about developments in a process that will have a tremendous impact on their economic well-being?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Industry, Science and Technology and Minister for International Tbade):: Mr. Speaker, I know my hon. friend is not able to get to committee meetings. I discussed the objectives of the Government of Canada at a committee meeting on international trade two or three weeks ago.
This afternoon we have offered to his trade critic the opportunity to come to a briefing by the chief negotiator of the North American free trade negotiations, to provide access to the text, as well as a two to three hour briefing on the specific elements of the text.
My hon. friend is very well aware that we have provided briefings on an ongoing basis to members of the advisory groups involved. They have provided us as well as the provinces, with advice on the trade negotiations.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we know that the Prime Minister is talking this afternoon with the Wall Street Journal.
I know the press will ask him about this, because it is a very important topic in the United States at this moment. What will be the treaty with Mexico and Canada on free trade? I would like to know from the minister if Canadians will be obliged to read in the Wall Street Journal what will be going on tomorrow rather than knowing from this government. We want to get the facts to the Canadian people.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, we have been as open with Canadians as the United States government is with Americans.


Mr. Barrett:: Nonsense and you know it. Read Bosley's report.
March 19, 1992


Michael Holcombe Wilson: My friend at the other end says nonsense. Let me read what Mr. Gephardt, the majority leader of the House of Representatives said in a letter to Mrs. Hills. "While the U.S. negotiated position and documents have been provided to Canadian and Mexican negotiators, the public is being-that is the U.S. public-is being kept in the dark". Congress is asking for the same information as members on the other side are asking.
The simple facts are that we are not going to undermine our national negotiating position and we are not going to provide to members of the public on an open basis with matters which are subject of commercial confidentiality. We will continue to do the briefings on the basis I have offered to the House committee. That offer still stands. It is unfortunate that the members of the opposition have put politics ahead of their country's national interests.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, for two days in a row the Minister for International Trade has said that he would not offer commercially confidential information about the free trade negotiations. No one is asking for such information. No one is seeking commercially confidential information.
What Canadians want to know is what this government's minimal objectives are in these negotiations. For example, the existing United States-Canada free trade agreement has shown itself to be flawed because there is no definition of subsidies. Will this government be part of a trilateral agreement which does not include a subsidies code and which does not include a prompt and binding dispute settlement mechanism? That is the sort of question we want answered, not whether it is commercially confidential information.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I responded to that type of question quite precisely. The question of subsidies is the subject right now of negotiations under the multilateral trade negotiations. We have made it very clear it is the result of that negotiation that we will apply, both to the free trade agreement with the United States as well if we have one with Mexico, to the Mexican negotiations.
As far as the dispute settlement mechanism is concerned, my hon. friend is very well aware it was absolute-
Oral Questions
ly critical to our going through with the free trade agreement with the United States and the maintenance of that, on a binding basis, as my friend has reminded us, is also absolutely critical to a North American free trade negotiation.


Roy MacLaren: The minister knows that those answers are the sort of questions which should be answered in committee in an open discussion and not in some sort of confidential briefing that is the best that the minister can apparently offer.
The Canadian people have many other questions that this government has failed to answer. Other countries, for example, Chile and Costa Rica, want to be part of a free trade agreement in the western hemisphere. Canadians will want to know whether it is one of the objectives of this government to open the way for other western hemisphere countries to join the agreement. Specifically, is this government seeking an accession clause in the final agreement?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my friend is asking some very specific questions and, if I might say so, they are good questions. It is unfortunate his colleagues in the committee meeting I was at were braying like donkeys and not asking the sort of questions which went anything like to the point of the objectives of the negotiations that my hon. friend is trying to do today. I compliment him on that.
As far as the question of accession, we have made it clear that this is a matter we think should be discussed on a very careful basis with the Americans and the Mexicans. Precisely where we are going to end up on that particular issue I cannot say at this point, but I would be happy to go into it in more detail in the committee if he wishes to.


GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Deputy Prime Minister who will have noted that Helmut Kohl is flying to Washington tomorrow to discuss the German position at the renewed GATT discussions.

March 19, 1992
Oral Questions
Five weeks have passed since the Prime Minister was instructed unanimously by this House to hold similar meetings with Presidents Bush and Delore in order to secure their support for a clarified and strengthed article XI(2)(c)(i) at the GATT. Can he tell us what arrangements our Prime Minister has made to comply with that request?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Agriculture):: The
Prime Minister, as the House knows and as farm leadership knows, has had discussions with international leaders, with Chancellor Kohl, with Prime Minister Major, with Prime Minister Mitterrand, with President Delore and with President Bush, putting forward Canada's position.
The Prime Minister spoke to Chancellor Kohl before his meeting this weekend with President Bush, putting forward Canada's position and attempting to garner support from Chancellor Kohl for Canada's position. We will continue to do that. It is a matter of the timing as to when it would best serve the interests of Canada that the Prime Minister take further steps, but the Prime Minister was deeply involved in this process well before the House instructed him. He was involved in the interests of Canadian agriculture over the whole round of GATT for the last five years.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister would table in the House the dates of the meetings that he says occurred with President Bush and President Delors.
Mike Gifford, who was our senior negotiator at the GAIT talks told the publication Ontario Farmer that while Canada has not offered tariff equivalents for the supply managed industries, Canada's tabled offer has followed the Dunkel paper.
Since the Dunkel report does not mention anything about article XI(2)(c)(i), how is supply management protected with the government's position?


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is coming into the debate a little late.
We informed the supply management farm leaders, we informed the SAGIT, which advises the government, that when Canada tabled our access along with other countries, we would be following the Dunkel text with the exception of those industries which were supply managed.
We informed them that in fact we would be tabling no tariff equivalents for supply management but that we would in turn be tabling Canada's position which is to have supply management recognized, article XI recognized and operational or clarified and strengthened. We tabled that as Canada's position.
We have followed the Dunkel text with that exception. That was knowledge that was given to the SAGIT and supported by the SAGIT.


Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands - Canso):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade.
Considering the unprecedented loss of jobs following the signing of the free trade agreement between Canada and the United States, can the minister give this House the assurance that his government has completed the requisite impact studies to prove that an agreement with Mexico will not have the same disastrous consequences for Canada? Furthermore, is he prepared to publish those studies?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me just draw my friend's attention to the fact that our exports are up over $5 billion since we entered into the free trade agreement.
Our trade surplus with the United States is up about 10 per cent. The net flows of foreign direct investment have moved from a negative position of $2.5 billion to a net positive of about $5 billion or swinging $7.5 billion, all of which are helping this economy.
My hon. friend is cherry picking statistics when he talks about job loss. He is not looking at the net bottom line of what the positive benefits of this agreement are. As far as the impacts are concerned, I have commented on the impacts on a number of occasions.

March 19, 1992

We have two-way trade with Mexico of $2.5 billion. With the United'States, it is over $200 billion. If all trade is added in, it is $256 billion, so there is a tremendous difference. Therefore, the impact of different industries are considerably less than any impact that would have to occur with the free trade agreement with the United States.
Mr. Francis G. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, the minister cannot deny the thousands of job losses that have occurred by firms in Canada moving south of the border.
Surely Canadians have a right to know that they will not be sold down the river if Canada embarks upon a North American free trade agreement. Has his department completed the impact studies on the sectoral effects of a NAFTA agreement? Will he make those impact studies public? Will he commit his government to ensuring that this time adequate adjustment provisions are in place for Canadians?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me remind my friend again that some 70 per cent of the exports that come from Mexico into Canada come here free of duty already. There will not be the impact that my hon. friend is talking about.
My friend also talks about the job loss that he knows is directly caused by the free trade agreement. What any reasonable economist will tell you today is that there is a recession, there is adjustment related to free trade, there is adjustment related to change that is going on internationally that is affecting all countries.
It is this combination of things that is affecting our economy today. We are going through a period that is unprecedented in our history. For my hon. friend to draw these simplistic conclusions is misleading the Canadian public.


Mr. Paul Martin (LaSalle -Emard):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade, and it will be frank and forthright.
Will the government promise not to sign a North American free trade agreement, in the absence of parallel agreements that oblige all three countries to have common standards for the environment and health and safety in the workplace?
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, today in Vancouver, at a meeting of the Canadian Council of Environment Ministers, the Mexican deputy minister responsible for the environment was asked to speak on the subject of a possible environmental agreement between Canada, Mexico and the United States.
He will tell the ministers today what he has already told me several times, namely, that in Mexico they have environmental standards similar to those we have in Canada, but without the same emphasis on enforcement.
Furthermore, he will inform them of the fact that on February 25, the U.S. Government and the Mexican Government announced a special initiative targeted to the Mexican-U.S. border area. The Mexicans will spend over $450 million in the next three years, while the Americans will also invest in various infrastructures.
In concluding, I would like to say that one of the positive results of this potential agreement between Canada, Mexico and the United States will be to ensure that in all three countries, which means the entire continent, the environment comes out the winner.


Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is again to the Minister for International Trade.
What the minister's colleague has told us is that the Mexicans have stated publicly what their objectives are and the Americans have stated publicly what their objectives are. What we are asking in this House is would this government tell the Canadian people what its objectives are?
First of all, I am asking the Canadian minister for his objectives. Will the NAFTA agreement contain threshold provisions specifically geared to the enforcement of a common set of environmental standards and a common set of work place safety and security standards for Canadian workers?
Second, will violation of these standards constitute unfair trade practices?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I believe it was in this House that we stated what our objectives were for environmental matters in relation to the free trade agreement.

March 19, 1992
Oral Questions
If my hon. friend would take the time, we will take him through exactly what those are. What my colleague has said is that we, on a parallel basis with the free trade agreement negotiations, embarked on a number of discussions on ways that we can assist the Mexicans with the enforcement of what are widely regarded as very good standards of environmental protection. Their problems are enforcement.
So as my colleague and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have announced, we are already proceeding on an agreement and this will proceed. That is one of a number of things that we have done on the environmental side.
I would be happy to sit down, as I know my colleague would, to make sure that my hon. friend is well aware of everything that we are doing on the environmental side.


TOBACCO INDUSTRY
Mr. Ken Monteith (Elgin-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
The export tax imposed on tobacco products has caused great concern for the tobacco farmers in my riding, the riding of my colleague, the member for Oxford, and the riding of the member for Haldimand- Norfolk. At a time when farmers should be concerned about seeding their crops, many are wondering if they will have a market to sell to at harvest time.
While this measure was implemented to counter smuggling of tobacco products, farmers in my riding fear that this tax will put them and not the smugglers out of business.
Emotions are running high on this issue. Can the minister tell me what efforts the government has made to ensure that Canadian tobacco farmers will have a market for their 1992 crop?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's concern and the concern of other hon. members. I particularly appreciate the fact that he and other members have made representations to me.
As the member indicated, the export tax was put in place to curtail the smuggling and the illegal entry of
Canadian cigarettes into Canada. I can assure the hon. member that it was never the intention of the export tax to be applied to legitimate exports of tobacco products into other countries. I can assure the hon. member that is the case and that is the intention. He can also assure tobacco farmers that the export tax was aimed at containing and smuggling and not applied to bona fide legitimate exports of tobacco products.
I can tell the hon. member that discussions are ongoing with the tobacco industry and I am satisfied that we will be able to resolve it in a manner satisfactory to the producers.


POVERTY
James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
The recession continues to take the toll on the most disadvantaged Canadians, those who are unemployed and who are relying on public assistance.
This morning a report out of Nova Scotia documents that municipal welfare offices often arbitrarily disqualify applicants and violate the terms of the Canada Assistance Plan. Further, welfare rates for single people vary from 61 per cent of the poverty level to only 30 per cent of the poverty level.
Will the minister meet immediately with officials of the province of Nova Scotia to ensure that they comply with the Canada Assistance Plan and stop the arbitrary disqualification of people who need necessary public assistance?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I was informed about the matter my friend has raised. It has been raised in other instances. The Department of National Health and Welfare is investigating the matter. Of course, all the provinces have to comply with the rules of the Canada Assistance Plan. If there is a problem, Nova Scotia will have to be corrected.


James Capsey (Jim) Karpoff: My supplementary question is to the same minister.
March 19, 1992

It is now reported that two thirds of all recipients of food bank services in Atlantic Canada are teenagers or children. What action is this government intending to take to see that children in this country receive adequate assistance and are not dependent on charity and food banks?


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I said yesterday and the day before that we all deplore the fact that children particularly have to count on food banks to be fed.
Having said that, I believe the last package of child benefits we put forward, particularly for low-income workers will help and will relieve those families. Maybe it will not be able to do all my friend asks for, but there is a real willingness to do the best we can to relieve those people.
In light of the capacity we have to improve the economy we will be able to put more resources to the services of those people.


GENERAL MOTORS
Mr. Garth Turner (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology.
To the obvious disappointment of the president of local 222 of the Canadian Auto Workers, General Motors employees in Oshawa voted yesterday to reject a request from the company which would have made that facility more competitive.
Can the minister tell the house how serious he considers this action to be and if he will ask CAW boss Bob White to discuss other ways of maintaining the viability of these 4,000 jobs?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister may answer if he wishes, but the question is not directed to the administration of government. It is out of order.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I simply wanted to say that the matter of GM Oshawa and the difficulties it is going through now in terms of the discussions it is having with Detroit on the future of the plant is something that is very, very much a matter of concern to the government.
Oral Questions
I have spoken to Mr. Peapples, I have spoken to Bob White and other union leaders in Oshawa. As well, I visited with Mr. Stempel in Detroit.
There is a difference of opinion between the union and the company. I hope that they will be able to resolve this in a way to support the ongoing operations of the company's plant in Oshawa.
 * *


FRANCOPHONES OUTSIDE QUEBEC
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Was the minister stating his government's position when he said, and I quote the Canadian Press here: "Even if they have been asked to, francophones outside Quebec will not take part in the constitutional talks as natives will. There are a million Italians, but they do not ask for anything."
In his statement, the minister makes French Canadians and Acadians feel they are no more than one group among many others. In so doing, he wipes away an historical national policy and renounces linguistic duality. I ask him this: Was he quoted accurately?
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, as a rule I do not comment on newspaper articles and today is no exception. I think that the House is a great forum and I take this opportunity to reiterate my opinion on that subject.
My position has not changed since the days when I was Secretary of State responsible for the issue of francophones outside Quebec for one year. The federal government is and will continue to be, responsible for the protection of all linguistic minorities in Canada. We have spent a lot of money on this and will continue in the future.
With regard to their participation in the constitutional talks, what I said, was that the number of people they represent does not constitute, in my mind, a criterion on which to decide whether or not a certain group should be represented, but rather that the francophone minority being represented though governments, with the Quebec government representing the francophone majority, while the federal government is responsible for the francophone minority, the representation of native groups is based on their existence as a founding nation.

March 19, 1992
Oral Questions
I have total respect for francophones outside Quebec, and this government continues and will continue in the future to protect their interests.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I have a great deal of respect and affection for my Italian fellow citizens, but that is beside the point. I am not talking about minority language groups. I am talking about the Canadian duality.
I want the hon. minister to tell me whether he is stating government policy or not when he portrays the French Canadian community as nothing more than a minority like any other minority. I put the question to him.
Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health
and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what I said earlier. The francophone minority outside Quebec is part of one of this country's three founding nations, namely the francophone community, the majority of which is represented by the Quebec government, and the minority by the government of Canada.
That is my position and it reflects that of the government on this issue. The question was about representation at the constitutional table, and my answer was that it was not a matter of numbers. But I will say again, that I never comment on newspaper articles, and that is not about to change.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Denis wishes to ask a supplementary question.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for exceptionally allowing a second supplementary question.
The question of my colleague, who is probably the greatest expert in this House on such issues, was to find out from the minister whether or not he was misquoted. If he was, it is easy, let him tell us; if he does not believe he was misquoted, let him say so. But given the emotions aroused, there is enough emotion in this country and in my province, which is also his. This has nothing to do with our respect and friendship for our friends of Italian origin.
We want to know if from now on the French Canadian community is to be considered as one minority among
many others. That is what my colleague asked. This article stirred emotions and the minister must tell us whether or not it represents his views and that will allay our concerns about it.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, I must repeat what I said before.
The French-speaking community, whether it is in Quebec or not, is one of the founding peoples of this country. As such, it has a special status compared to other communities which are not called founding nations of Canada. As a majority, it is represented by the Government of Quebec in Quebec and as a minority, by the Government of Canada in the other provinces. Therefore it is up to the Government of Canada to fulfil that responsibility and role in the constitutional discussions and that is the position which I defended.
I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, who rarely asks questions and when he does, it is because he has some concern, I think. Therefore I repeat as honestly as I can that the French-speaking community, wherever it is, is a founding people of this country and as such, depending on its situation, must be defended accordingly. That is exactly what I did, and I will continue to do so, Mr. Speaker.


AIR ONTARIO
Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
Just over three years have passed since the tragic Air Ontario crash at Dryden, Ontario. The government has had the report of the commission of inquiry in its possession since last week.
Why has the government not tabled this report in the House of Commons? What is it that the government is trying to hide from the people of Canada?


Hon. Jean Corbeil (Minister of Transport):: We have nothing to hide, Mr. Speaker. The document will be officially presented to the government within the next few days. As soon as it is presented to the government by Judge Moshansky it will be tabled in this House.
March 19, 1992


LONDON AIRPORT
Mr. Terry Clifford (London-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport.
The minister should know that London airport has been designated to be annexed by the city of London from West Nissouri township as outlined in the dictum issued by the provincial minister of municipal affairs to the arbitrator. This airport represents 28 per cent of the revenue of West Nissouri.
What involvement did the federal Minister of Transport have in this provincial decision? Will the minister guarantee to the people of London the future safety and effective operation of this federal airport?


Jean Corbeil: Mr. Speaker, I fully appreciate the concern of the hon. member. I sympathize as an ex-municipal person with the problems that it is presenting to his municipality. But I am sure the member acknowledges that this matter is strictly a municipal-provincial jurisdiction.
The Government of Canada is responsible for the airport lands and for the safety on and outside the airport. I am afraid that he must address his concern to the province and the municipality that are responsible for municipal boundaries.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the gallery of His Excellency Dr. Gyorgy Szabad, President of the National Assembly of Hungary.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: I also wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of the Committee on Regional Planning, Building and Urban Development of the Bundestag.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


POINTS OF ORDER
David Barrett: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Points of Order
During an answer to a question in the House today the Minister for International Trade referred to and quoted from a letter from Senator Gephardt. Under the rules of this House it is my understanding that a minister quoting from a document is obliged to table such a document, and I make that request through you, Mr. Speaker.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I will pass on the representation from my hon. friend.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I can settle this matter. I think what the hon. government House leader is saying is that he will assure it is brought to the minister's attention. The hon. member has a completely valid point of order.


COMMENTS OF MEMBER FOR CARIBOO-CHILCOTIN
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises from page 8181 of Hansard and a statement made by the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin which is both false and dishonest.
It states, and I quote, that I had been-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a minute, just a minute. Is there any need to rise on a point of order to make an accusation like that against another hon. member? I cannot accept that.
The hon. member for Skeena may want to put it in another way and, if he does, I will accept it. But that is a straight allegation of dishonesty and I think it has to be withdrawn.


James Ross Fulton: I am perfectly prepared to withdraw that, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the hon. member who made the following statement about me would do the same. Previous Speakers have ruled that personal attacks upon the person of another member are inappropriate and have ruled them out of order. The hon. member said, and I quote, that I had been "systematically betraying and slandering the B.C. share groups". I would ask that you rule on that point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: First of all, I appreciate the fact the hon. member for Skeena withdrew the offensive comment.

Business of the House
I would ask the hon. member to let me look at the statement to which he refers and I shall consider it. If necessary, I will call upon another hon. member, but I shall come back and I shall rule upon it.


PARTY FUNDRAISING
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the House I responded to a statement by the member from the Reform Party and I quoted from a document which relates to the B.C. party's fundraising which includes wills, and insurance policies.
I have the complete document and with the permission of the House, I would like to table it at this time. It will prove that we do not ask for political tax credits to be used to pay for any premiums.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member asks for permission to table the document. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question to the government House leader is for the business for tomorrow, Monday, Tuesday, and as far as he can see in terms of next week.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, with the hopeful completion of second reading stage of Bill C-60 today, it would be my intention tomorrow to call Bill C-52, an act respecting water resources in the Yukon Territory at second reading, followed by Bill C-64, the Northwest Territories Act, for all three stages.
On Monday, we will be proceeding with the report and third reading stages of Bill C-61, an act to provide for borrowing authority for the 1992 fiscal year and on Tuesday, I would hope to call an allotted day.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I make this observation as a representation to the government House leader. Certain press reports have indicated that a move is afoot with the government in terms of denying or if you will,
doing away with annual parliamentary reports being tabled in the House of Commons.
The minister will well know that would require, in many instances, an amendment to the particular statute for that department. Where there is no particular statute in play other than the traditions and the customs of this House, I am wondering if the minister would take that as representation and come back to the House. Perhaps I could share with him the article in which it was printed in order to clarify any misunderstandings that may exist.


Harvie Andre: As an experienced politician, the hon. member knows that one ought not to take everything in print as gospel. I do not know of any such rumour, but as the hon. member quite rightly points out, many of the requirements for annual reports to Parliament arise out of the specific pieces of legislation which create the mandate of the agencies and so on whose annual reports are required to be tabled.
It would certainly take a bill of this House to undertake that kind of move. It might possibly be that somewhere within government there are officials looking at the cost benefit of those kinds of expenditures and so on. Certainly, before the government would ever contemplate doing something like that, we would want to have discussions with the other side of the aisle.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my final question to the government House leader is: Can he indicate to the House whether or not there is any intention of the government of Canada to lay upon the table a comprehensive report with regard to the Beaudoin-Dobbie report which was a special joint committee? Is there an intention to table a report before the House rises in June?


Harvie Andre: Subject to correction, I believe the government needs to respond in some fashion. Obviously, given other events that have occurred and the discussions going on and the meetings with provinces, et cetera, the nature of the report will undoubtedly be affected by those discussions. But we will certainly meet the commitment, if it exists and I think it does, that we need some sort of report. In the meantime, we will get progress on these constitutional discussions and the contents of that report will not be as significant or matter as much.
March 19, 1992



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, March 18, consideration of the motion of Mr. Charest that Bill C-13, an Act to establish a federal environmental assessment process, be read the third time and passed.
Mr. Speaker:: The House will now proceed to the deferred division on the motion for third reading of Bill C-13, an Act to establish a federal environmental assessment process.


[Stage Direction]
Call in the members.

[Stage Direction]
Nowlan	Siddon
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried. Bill read the third time and passed.

March 19, 1992
Government Orders


Mr. Blackburn (Jonquiere):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I abstained from voting, but I wish to say that I think that the environment, which is a split jurisdiction with federal primacy, must remain so, as was recommended in our report. However, at this stage of the constitutional negotiations, I consider this bill to be an irritant and inappropriate at this time.


Mr. Gerin:: Mr. Speaker, I believe that a member who is opposed to a bill must vote against it and not abstain.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may believe it but it is not a rule.


Mr. Della Noce:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I rise in this House to ask you where is Lucien, the father of this bill?


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS AND FEDERAL POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION AND HEALTH CONTRIBUTIONS ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I must say I am somewhat disappointed to be standing in this House once again to speak against the latest government budget, in particular when it comes to the transfer payments to the provinces.
The reason I say that is, as you know Mr. Speaker, if we are to follow the trend and look at the graphs as they relate to transfer payments for both post-secondary and health, by the year 2004 there will be no money going from the federal government to the provinces in the areas of post-secondary education and medicare.
Mr. Speaker, as you probably know, the issues of medicare and education have been identified by the Canadian people as the two most important issues and the issues that are closest to their hearts. The reason is because one of those issues, the question of education, deals with the future of Canadians and the other issue deals with their very existence, the issue of health and health care.
On the subject of education per se, Canada has spent perhaps more than any other country in the world. As a matter of fact, we spend approximately $50 billion on education. That includes all levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal.
When we look at the return on that investment, unfortunately we find it simply is not there. At no time has one level of government taken full control over the issue of education and rightly so because the question of education has always been a joint venture, a partnership between all the different levels of government. They have come together on this issue. The federal government deals with the transfer payments for education. It spends money on education through transfer payments and the provinces match those funds. From time to time they spend more and sometimes they spend less. The municipalities deal with questions of education at the primary and secondary level.
When one of those partners who is fully responsible knows full well that our education system is not meeting the needs, when one of those partners backs off, it really comes as a disappointment to the other partners. Like any other partnership, when one of the partners is not fulfilling his or her commitment, the partnership starts falling apart. That is exactly what is happening here in the area of education. More and more the federal government is backing away from its responsibility in the field of education.
There are two segments to it. First, historically when the federal government was investing money in the area of education in terms of transfer payments, it was giving that money to the provinces which in some cases were
March 19, 1992

not spending that money on education. They were spending it on other issues. That was one problem. In the past the federal government should have told the provinces that every dollar it was giving to education, it wanted to make sure that dollar was spent on education. It did not do so. As a result of that we have seen a deterioration in terms of investment at the provincial level in the areas of education.
At the present time, not only is the federal government not telling the provinces how it wants them to spend the money when it comes to education, the federal government is backing off on its commitment. Therefore, we are seeing less and less government funds going into the area of education.
That means that over the next decade or so, about 65 per cent of all jobs that will be created in Canada will require at least a grade 12 education. We are going to see a situation where we have less and less people who are equipped to enter the work force and be fully productive in our society.
Why do I say this? The statistics speak for themselves. Right now there is over a 30 per cent dropout rate at the post-secondary education level. In other words, one out of every three youths does not finish high school for whatever reason. That is one cause for alarm.
The other cause for alarm is the terrible question of illiteracy. The illiteracy rate here in Canada is extremely high. Approximately 38 per cent of Canadians are functionally illiterate. Compare that to a country such as Japan which has an illiteracy rate of about 5 per cent or to Germany which has an illiteracy rate of approximately 12 per cent or so. The conclusion is that there is something fundamentally wrong in terms of our society and how we deal with the question of illiteracy and the question of education.
It is interesting to know that not only is the question of education so important and so alarming when we look at the statistics, but at the same time, it is important when we look at the percentage of unemployed people. For ask instance, it has been found that if we have a group of people who have university degrees, we are likely to find that the unemployment rate is something around 10 per cent, which is in line with the national statistics. However, when we look at people who have a high school level of education, we find that the percentage of unemployment is somewhere around 16 per cent to 18 per cent.
Government Orders
When we look at the lower end of the scale, i.e., people who do not have a high school education, the percentage of unemployment in that particular segment of the population is somewhere around 24 per cent or 25 per cent.
It is not really difficult to see the correlation between a good education and good jobs. The more highly educated the work force or the population is, the better jobs they will get and the less unemployment we will find.
Having said all of that, there is also a lot to say about the health of the population. If a student, regardless of his or her age, goes to school hungry, it is highly unlikely he or she will learn as much as other children might learn if his or her stomach is full. The reason I say this is because we are finding more and more in schools all across the country that we have children who are going to school hungry.
That brings me to the second segment of my discussion and that is the transfer payments relating to health care, social assistance programs, social services and everything else. Every time the federal government cuts a dollar from the transfer payments to the provinces, do you know who feels it? The child on the street feels it. It is because the provinces in turn unload part of their responsibilities on to the municipalities. By unloading part of their responsibilities on to the municipalities, we are finding that more and more municipalities are unloading their responsibilities on to charitable organizations, non-profit organizations, church groups and special interest groups.
As a result of that, every level of government seems to be passing on its responsibility to someone else. Everything nowadays is falling on the school system and on the backs of the teachers in particular. Our teachers are now finding themselves as not only being teachers but also social workers, nurses, family planners, psychologists and food bank operators. In many of the urban centres in our society that is the kind of thing we are seeing on a daily basis.
What that tells me is that not only are we failing to do our job in the most effective way when it comes to dealing with the question of education, but we are also not providing the tools necessary for the people to do the work. We are not providing them with the necessary support that they deserve and they need.

Government Orders
While this particular budget per se did not specifically speak in terms of transfer payments, what we have seen in a way is a continuation of previous budgets. If we were to look at the budget of last year and the year before, the same thing happened.
What we are seeing is a decline on a regular basis in the area of transfer payments to the provinces. Those cuts are going to affect provinces such as Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.
That brings me to the province of Ontario. Everything functions from a tax base. Everything is a function of the tax base. Not only in this province do we see that the transfer payments from the federal government are diminishing, but we also see the tax base shrinking.
Simply put, this province has been hit perhaps more than any other province when it comes to the shrinkage of its industry. It is partially because of the unfortunate policies of the government in the province of Ontario that does not take into consideration the need for business in order to survive, to provide jobs and employment. It is also because of the unfortunate recession that has hit at a most inappropriate time.
Looking at those two ends one asks: What can be done? Every time the provinces, the municipalities, the school system or any segment of our society fails the people, we as the federal government have the mandate to step in.
That is the thing that makes us so different as Canadians. We always seem to be on the lookout for those who need our help and assistance. I say this because we do have a crisis situation in our communities. We have a lot of children going to school hungry, people lining up in front of churches and food banks. There are a lot of people who lower their heads and look to charitable organizations for services and so on.
Seeing those kinds of situations, I cannot help but think that we must be doing something wrong. Somebody somewhere somehow in our society is doing something wrong. We as a federal government have the responsibility to take care of our people. We have to find out which level of government is not doing its work.
If we are saying that this government is doing a great job and putting the fundamentals in place and making sure that we have all of the special rules and laws that businesses might need in order to survive, then something else must be broken. It is up to this government to step in and find out what it really is that is broken.
When I look at what the government is doing in the area of transfer payments for education, I would say that the federal government is perhaps more guilty than the provinces, more guilty than the municipalities, more guilty than anyone else. In a way it is the main controller. It is the one sending the signals.
When the federal government sends the signal to the provinces by cutting transfer payments, surely the provinces are going to cut the transfer payments to the municipalities in the areas of education, social services and everything else.
As you can see, it is one problem that has triggered a series of other problems. If we are really serious about moving toward the future and creating a future for our children that is prosperous and good, that is maintained and contained, I suggest that we have to look at the fundamentals.
Those fundamentals are the investment in the futures of those people in the areas of education and health care. I cannot say enough on that. In particular, day after day we see people lining up in front of food banks and churches, people turning to special interest groups to get the support that they deserve and need.
With that I want to end with the statement that the government has a responsibility not only to reinstate those transfer payments, but also to make sure those transfer payments are increased with the cost of living as well as with the rate of inflation.
This is an important subject and I would like to bring to the attention of the House that unless we invest in the area of education there is no way we can solve our other problems. Unless we invest and combat illiteracy there is no way we can solve our other problems.
It does not matter whether we talk about unemployment, lack of productivity, lack of business, whatever. It does not matter how you slice it. The answer to all of that is education and education and education.
March 19, 1992

There is no question about it. If we have a properly educated workforce we can deal with just about anything. The pressure on our social programs will ease. The pressure on our health care system will ease. Political pressure will ease. All of those pressures seen on a daily basis will ease off.
Simply put, with an educated population we can do miracles. That will not only put Canada in the best position to be on the leading edge in the world community, but it will also ensure that Canada will remain on that leading edge.
I was watching a program about a week or so ago on television. It was on The Journal I think. The president of one of the Asian republics was asked about the difference between Canada and Singapore, or one of those countries and to compare the difference between North Americans and the Asian population. He used the correlation that the people in his country are like a high compression engine, while the workforce in North America is like a low compression engine.
I thought that correlation between the two was really interesting. If anything he was giving us a signal that while we might be great at creation and great at coming up with good new ideas, what is needed to be done is to streamline the system and make it efficient in order to improve the area of productivity.
I began by saying the only way to improve productivity is by increasing investment in education. What we are seeing right now is a lack of investment in the area of education.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Questions and comments. The five hours of debate are now expired. The length of speeches are now maximum 10 minutes without a question and comment period.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Do we still have questions and comments, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Do you have a question?


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I was going to ask the member a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The hon. member for Winnipeg-Transcona for a question or comment.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, the member has dwelt at some length on all the social policy questions that attend the whole question of transfer payments to the provinces, et cetera, and the
Government Orders
way in which the federal government is cutting back on the provinces.
The member only came to this House in 1988 and I wonder if he is aware that the first unilateral cutback in federal transfer payments to the provinces happened under a Liberal government in 1982.
One of the things that has always disturbed me, amused me, and irritated me at times, is the fact that this trend toward the unilateral reduction of federal commitment in cost-sharing programs began under a Liberal government.
At the time the Conservative Party, when it was in opposition, railed against this unilateral violation of the federal-provincial agreement. It was thought to be a heinous act against co-operative federalism and, of course, it was. The only thing is that as soon as it came into power, no sooner than had it been in power, the then Minister of National Health and Welfare, the member for Provencher, one of his first acts was to unilaterally reduce EPF.
So I find it odd that Liberals and Conservatives should go at each other in this way when both are guilty of this, albeit the Conservatives, if you want to look at the world numerically, are more guilty in the sense that they have done it more often and that they have done it more severely in the sense that doing it more often adds up.
The fact of the matter is that the principle of the federal government unilaterally reducing federal transfer payments to the provinces was one established by the Liberal Minister of Finance, who now sits in the other place and who shall go unnamed.
Perhaps the Liberal Party has changed its mind. Perhaps it has repented of its earlier disposition toward federal-provincial programs. If that is so, we would like to see a confession, some repentance and then the member could speak freely about this new-found approach by the Liberal Party on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to dwell on the past, but I want to talk about the present, the province of Ontario for example. I do not want to go back as far as 1981 or 1982 because it does not matter how far back I go, I probably would not find that we have ever had a socialist government at the federal level to compare the different governments and what they have done.

March 19, 1992
Government Orders
I can say this. The NDP government in Ontario is one government I can speak about because only just a year or so ago we had an election. It promised to increase funding for education by around 60 per cent. What it has done is it has increased tuition fees time after time after time after time. It has promised to give the people of Ontario public automobile insurance. And it reneged on that. I hate to do this, but he put me in a very awkward position and I have only to compare apples and apples.
What I cannot understand is that in the province of Ontario, especially in this particular region, hospitals are closing beds at a time when we have people on waiting lists for operations. Looking at those two areas where the hon. member is blaming some action that was taken by a former government in the 1980s or 1970s or 1960s, I want to bring to his attention something that happened as recently as two months ago where in the province of Ontario hospitals closed beds.
Surely the hon. member is not going to be able to defend the action of the NDP government in Ontario when it comes to health care and health care commitment, nor is he going to be able to defend the action of the province of Ontario when it comes to education.
I want to say this for the record. When the Prime Minister of this government made public his initiative on learning well, living well and the need for national objectives and so on in the area of education, that was something which my party supported wholeheartedly, the notion of national objectives for education and everything else.
Out of all the provinces in Canada, which province do you think was out in full force to oppose any kind of a national dialogue on the question of education? Guess. It was the province of Ontario.
The record speaks for itself. This is the only government we can talk about in terms of its track record.
One final word for the record, take the deficit as another example. We have a deficit let us say on an annual basis which is close to about $30 billion. Compare that to the province of Ontario. In one year, it jacked up the deficit to $11.5 billion which, per capita, probably is
the highest deficit of any other state anywhere in North America.


Mr. Mike Breaugh (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I just want the member's reaction to this point. The only thing more outrageous than what he just said was the record of the previous Liberal government in Ontario. This was a world record. In a matter of six weeks, not a year, it took the province of Ontario with its treasurer who said that there was a surplus and that surplus became a $225 million deficit. Figure that one out.


Mac Harb: Mr. Speaker, I am talking about the difference between a deficit of $30 billion and a deficit of $11 billion. Certainly they cannot blame the former Liberal Government of Ontario, which I am not defending here, for a deficit of $700 million and then turn around and incur a deficit of $11.5 billion.
Day after day after day we are hearing of closure after closure after closure. What is the province of Ontario doing about that? The NDP premier of Ontario went on national television to tell the people: "I want to hear your views about what I should be doing". My God, any one of the constituents in my riding of Ottawa Centre can do that and can do a better job than asking the people: "Tell me about what I should be doing", or saying: "I am going on national TV in order to seek your views on what the province of Ontario should be doing".
Surely the people deserve better than a premier going on national television and saying: "I am interested in finding out your views about how I should be running my business". Any constituent in my riding could do a better job than that.
We can talk about the record as much as we want, but the bottom line remains that they can turn around and put the blame on anybody they want; they can still tell the people: "Oh, sorry, it is beyond our control".
The province of Ontario is blaming all its problems on international situations, on globalization, and on the fact that we have to be competitive, which is good, but what are they doing about it in the province of Ontario?
Certainly, if we look at the two areas, that of health care and education, the Government of Ontario does not
March 19, 1992

have a record that it can be proud of in the two years it has been in power.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, it is always interesting when people from Ontario, particularly the member, talk about the premier of Ontario going on national TV. I know that Ontarians have a reputation for thinking of themselves as co-existent with the country, but I am sure the premier of Ontario only went on provincial TV and he did not command air time in British Columbia. I would hope that in the future, people from Ontario, and particularly the hon. member, could refrain from the way in which they sometimes equate talking to Ontario with talking to Canada.
The other thing I might mention just before I get into the substance of the bill is that the member in his diatribe against the Ontario NDP government talked about the Ontario NDP government raising tuition fees time after time after time after time. Four times, Mr. Speaker. I could see the member's nose growing every time he uttered the word "time". Surely to God you cannot raise tuition fees, even if you wanted to, four times in two years. This just goes to show the exaggeration. The member must be a product of some educational system other than the excellent one that they have had in Ontario these years, or otherwise he would be able to count better than he was doing.
The Liberals cannot have it both ways. They cannot say that on the one hand everything that is happening in Ontario is the fault somehow of the Ontario NDP government and then, out of the other side of their mouths, talk about the free trade agreement when they talk about it. They do not like to talk about it much these days, but they do talk about it from time to time. Out of the other side of their mouths they cannot talk about the effect of cutbacks in EPF, for instances, to the provinces and pretend that that does not somehow affect all provinces including the Government of Ontario. On the same occasion in the House of Commons the member lamented cutbacks to EPF and the effect they would have on the provinces' ability to deliver programs. Yet, when it comes to talking about the ability of the Ontario NDP government to deliver programs, somehow that analysis fades, that analysis evaporates into the partisan political air, so to speak.
The fact is that these cutbacks in Established Programs Financing affect all provinces, and they have severely
Government Orders
affected Ontario in particular. Ontario is not protected in the same way as other provinces are by at least having some form of equalization payments. For the longest time Ontario has participated through the equalization payment scheme by supporting other provinces. Because Ontario has been hit so very hard by the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement, it now finds itself in a position where it is being asked in this bill to continue for another two years to play the role economically in Confederation that it has played historically, when the economic conditions that pertain to Ontario have changed drastically.
These are all things the member could have said if he had wanted to be more comprehensive and if he wanted to be less political in the negative sense of what it means to be political and help people to understand just exactly what is going on in his home province and how difficult things really are.
*
*


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have the honour to inform the House that messages have been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bills without amendment: Bill C-5, an Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to amend an Act to amend the Aeronautics Act; and Bill C-15, an Act to provide for certain matters respecting official languages, employees' pensions and labour relations in connection with the transfer of certain airports.



ROYAL ASSENT

["Order, please. The member's time has expired.", "Before going any further, I would like to inform the hon. member for Calgary Northeast that upon due consideration, his request was ruled in order, so that his name will appear in Hansard on the list of members who voted against Bill C-13.\nThe hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, Mr. Stu-pich, has given me written notice that he will be unable to present his motion under Private Members' Business on Friday, March 20, 1992. Since it was impossible to arrange for an exchange of positions in the order of precedence, pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(a), I ask the Clerk to drop this order to the bottom of the order of precedence.", "Pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(b), private members' hour will thus be suspended and the House will continue with the business before it prior to private members' hour.\nIt being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.\nMarch 19, 1992"]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have the honour to inform the House that the following communication was received:
Sir,
Rideau Hall Ottawa
March 19, 1992
I have the honour to inform you that the Hon. Charles D. Gonthier, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, March 19, 1992, at 4.00 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Judith A. LaRocque Secretary to the Governor General

March 19, 1992
Government Orders
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Senate Chamber.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act and to amend An Act to amend the Aeronautics Act -Chapter 4.
Bill C-15, An Act to provide for certain matters respecting official languages, employees' pensions and labour relations in connection with the transfer of certain airports-Chapter 5.



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-60, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Pursuant to Standing Order 38, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier- Linguistic Minorities; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond-Regional Development; the hon. member for Okanagan-Shuswap-Agriculture; the hon. member for Ottawa West-The Environment; the hon. member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke-Emergency Preparedness College.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I was in the process of responding in part to the comments of the hon. member for Ottawa Centre when we were asked to go to the Senate for Royal Assent. One of the remaining things I wanted to comment on was the way he
thought it irrelevant that the Liberals were the first to unilaterally reduce federal transfer payments to the provinces. He thought this was just something of historical interest but did not have any relevance to the moment. I think this is a profound mistake. It is perhaps just a self-serving analysis but if it is held sincerely, it is a profound mistake.
I was trying to point out that when people are concerned about certain policy trends, if they are interested in changing those policy trends then they ought to know where those policy trends come from. The fact of the matter is that the unilateral reduction of federal transfer payments to the provinces has its origins in the Liberal government of 1982.
That is important. It is important in a number of other areas as well. The people are concerned about the free trade agreement. It would probably be useful for them to know that the free trade agreement has its origins in the Liberal government of that day when the royal commission set up by the Prime Minister of that time and headed up by a former Liberal Minister of Finance made the initial recommendation for a free trade agreement with the United States of America.
It is important if people are concerned about the effects of deregulation and transportation. They see the effects of deregulation and transportation and the negative consequences of that deregulation whether it is with respect to airlines, the current controversy about Nation-air, or the fact that soon we might have only one carrier when all this deregulation was supposed to produce competition rather than monopoly. They look at what has happened to our highways as a result of deregulation of the trucking industry, et cetera.
It is important if people are against this policy to know where this policy came from. Where did it have its beginnings? What is its origin? Its origin is in the dictum of a Liberal Minister of Transport who was the Minister of Transport in the Liberal government of 1980 to 1984 and who now sits on the opposition front benches in the person of the member for Winnipeg South Centre.
I say that if people are concerned about certain policies, then we have a responsibility in this House to be truthful and accurate in what the historical origins of that policy are when it comes to deregulation, the free trade agreement, and when it comes to unilateral reductions in federal transfer payments to the provinces as
March 19, 1992

well as a lot of other bad policies that were picked up, accelerated and in many cases made worse by the Conservatives. These policies had their origins with the Liberals.
One policy that did not have its origins with the Liberals as far as I know was the goods and services tax. This bill is very much about the goods and services tax. This is the other element of this bill that needs to be touched upon at this time. What this bill does in permitting the federal government in facilitating the collection of provincial sales tax by the federal government is to enable the federal government not to do just a harmless "we will help you out" kind of thing, tax harmonization, or whatever they want to call it.
The fact of the matter is that this bill is designed to help the federal government put pressure on the provinces to harmonize their sales tax systems with the goods and services tax. The federal government is saying to those provinces, the economies of which are bleeding as a result of cross-border shopping: "If you want us to stop that bleeding, if you want us to collect the provincial sales tax at the border, then what we want from you is a commitment to implement the harmonization of your sales tax system with the goods and services tax".
Therefore, many of the provinces are now run by governments the members of which ran in elections that were committed to non-harmonization of the GST with the provincial sales tax. They are now put into an incredible bind. They are being blackmailed by the federal government, a federal government which for its own purposes is willing to continue to see the blood letting go on.
It is willing to continue to see the various provincial economies being bled by cross-border shopping rather than doing the right thing and saying, given what this bill will enable it to do, to the provinces: "We are willing to collect your provincial sales tax regardless of whether or not you harmonize with the GST". That would be the right thing to do because it seems to me that the federal government should not use its ability to collect this tax, facilitated by this bill, as a lever against provinces which are responding to the democratically expressed will of
Government Orders
their own people with respect to whether or not those provinces should harmonize their tax system with the GST, and yet that is really what is going on.
The solution, of course, lies in none of this. The solution lies in getting rid of the GST in the first place. The solution lies in realizing that the GST has been a profound mistake with respect to tax fairness, in the way in which it places an extraordinary burden on the working poor and the middle-class in particular who are bearing the brunt of this tax and who, even before this tax, bore the brunt of paying the bills in this country. It is a profound mistake in terms of the over-all effect of the tax on the economy and particularly with respect to cross-border shopping and the fact that cross-border shopping has increased so significantly since the introduction of the GST.
The Minister of National Revenue likes to hide behind figures which simply show the number of trips that are made, although they are up significantly, but the figure that he does not like to look at very closely is how much more people are buying while they are down there. This shows that the increase in cross-border shopping is in the neighbourhood of 50 per cent or 60 per cent. It is a serious problem that all border communities and even some non-border communities are concerned about. It is part of a general malaise, if you like, that I think has been created in part by the free trade agreement.
The free trade agreement is not just an agreement, in spite of what the Prime Minister likes to say. It is not just a commercial agreement that we can cancel in six months if we like, although I think we should cancel it and an NDP government would cancel it. The fact of the matter is that it does tend to enshrine a particular world view. The world view that it enshrines is that there is no border.
Now if there is no border for corporations and if indeed there seems to be no border for governments, because we find more and more examples of provincial governments and even the federal government crossborder shopping, then what is the average Canadian to think? Is he or she expected to support the Canadian economy while their own governments do not?

March 19, 1992
Government Orders
In other words, the free trade agreement gives a particular kind of moral sanctity or moral acceptance to something which would have previously been morally-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Your time is over. Resuming debate.


Michael James Breaugh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate that you are now into a period of time where debates are limited to 10 minutes. I appreciate that you just called one of our members to order as his time had expired, but I want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that from this comer of the Chamber there is no clock where the members themselves could have any indication at all of what the time period is. I think that is most unfair and I would really like the Chair to take that into consideration when calling members for time.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times we have to rise in this Chamber and talk about the education system in this country. We seem to have been doing it year after year after year. Again today we have to look at what has happened to transfer payments.
My colleague from Winnipeg-Transcona is quite right that the cutback in transfer payments did not start with the present government but indeed started before they took office. That is not to say that it is right. It is not right. It was not right then. It is not right now.
I am not sure it is useful to analyse the past and look at what has happened in the past. The fact that the trend has continued is it seems to me more shameful rather than less. The effect of the cutbacks which indeed did start in the late 1970s and have continued up to the present time is disastrous not only for the whole country but particularly for disadvantaged parts of the country.
First of all my colleague from Ottawa who spoke earlier talked about the effect on secondary schools that have something like a 30 per cent drop-out rate all across the country.
This is what transfer payments are used for. Transfer payments to the provinces you can say go directly into secondary schools and help young people in schools to get the kind of high school education that they need.
The capping in a sense is a cutback. If you cap you are saying to the provinces they are not going to get the
increases expected and therefore those funds must be found in their own meagre and dwindling resources. A cap is in effect a cutback. You cannot stay still. You either go ahead or you go back. The effect of a cap is the same as a cutback. It is a cutback to secondary schools.
On top of that the provinces still have a cap on Established Programs Financing. In addition to the cut on transfer payments there is a consistent cut in Established Programs Financing which goes directly into post-secondary education and health. That is used to fund universities, community colleges, and post-secondary institutions. Those are finding the pinch and still find it today.
Third, the government in the budget made very little change in the Canada Student Loans program. It changed around the edges somewhat. It tinkered with the pay back of interest payments. But essentially it did not enrich the Canada Student Loans program. It gave no incentive and no help to young people who do not have the wherewithal to get a post-secondary education and need it desperately.
This is a time when training should be at the top of the agenda in this country and indeed is at the top of the agenda in every developed country in the world. It is at the top of the agenda in the United States. George Bush wanted to call himself the education president. It is at the top of the agenda in Great Britain. Margaret Thatcher, before she left, gave top priority to education and training.
If you look around the world, at Japan, Germany, countries that are making it today in the competitive global environment, they are putting training at the top of their agenda. You cannot have training without the foundation of education.
This is a time when you must put training at the top of the agenda. What is this government doing? It is talking a good game. It is setting up a national training board to give emphasis to training in this country.
But what happened after the budget came out? The co-chair of that national training board, Mr. Gerard Docquier, formerly a prominent, eminent and well-known and well-respected national president of the steelworkers in this country, criticized the government that appointed him to that board. And rightly so. What
March 19, 1992

this government has done is pay lip service to training. It has set up the national training board and brought in Bill C-21 to enrich the Unemployment Insurance Act to which it is no longer contributing. It is paying people who have unemployment insurance to get training, but if you do not, if you are in the work force and you need upgrading to take a new job, if you are about to be laid off and you want to upgrade to get new skills to take a new job, you are left out in the cold. Why? Because there is a hundred million cutback in this budget in the Canadian Jobs Strategy. A hundred million less in training dollars in this present budget.
Now that is on top of a hundred million less in the last budget. There was $200 million cut back in the Canadian Jobs Strategy Program for training in Canada for people who are on the job, for people who want to improve their skills, for employers who want to train their employees and cannot afford to do it themselves.
The government talks a good game in setting up a national training board, appointing eminent people to it and then it cuts the money. It consistently cuts the money in this country available for training, in the middle of a recession when companies cannot afford on their own to put their money into training and development. That is the kind of attitude we get and it is hypocrisy of the highest order. Countries around the world must be laughing at the kind of strategy that Canada is pursuing.
Who does this hurt most? It hurts most the disadvantaged in the country, whether they be individuals or whether they be regions. Let us take women, for example. In breaking through the glass ceiling, education and training has to be a top priority for any woman. Seventy per cent of all part-time students in this country are women. Single mothers who want to support themselves and who want to have a respectable place for themselves and their children in this country have to get education and training if they are really to have a life of their own and to become independent.
That is who this series of cutbacks affects. It affects women in this country and it affects single mothers
Government Orders
particularly. Who else does it affect? It affects native people. I might point out that on top of the cuts in transfer payments and the cuts in Established Programs Financing, the government also, a couple of years ago, capped the funds for post-secondary education for natives.
Natives are in exactly the same boat. If they are to have equality in this country, equality of opportunity, there has got to be funds provided for them for education and training. Unless they can get through high school, unless they can get through community colleges, unless they can get university degrees, there is no way the native people in this country are going to compete on an equal footing.
This budget and the last budget affects the disadvantaged. It affects disadvantaged regions because even a region like Ontario now is having difficulty in this country. We heard the debate earlier today about the difficulty and what the government of the day in Ontario has had to do. How much more difficulty is the government of Newfoundland finding itself in? We depend more heavily than anybody else on transfer payments. So places like the Atlantic are doubly hurt by this budget.
We say this again. I do not know how many times we have had to say this in the House and I do not quite understand why the policy is so. Surely, on the government side of the House, there must be the same opportunity to learn about what is needed, to learn about what is going on in other countries, to learn that education and training has to be a top priority in 1992. This government refuses to follow the practice in other developed countries in the world with which we are competing in the global economy, refuses to give education and training a priority. Not only that, but it consistently, in budget after budget, cuts back on the amount of funds available for education and training.
We are going to vote against this bill when it comes forward. We are going to keep saying what we have been saying today as long as we have to up to and until the time that we become the government of Canada. Then we have to rectify the mistakes that the hon. member for Winnipeg-Transcona referred to in his remarks.

March 19, 1992
Government Orders


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I just realized that I was in the House during the vote on Bill C-13, that I did in fact rise, and that apparently, I am not on the list as having voted against the bill. So I would appeal to your wisdom in having this problem cleared up, because I was in the House at the time. The hon. member for Longueuil can testify to that, and I just spoke to him. He saw me rise, and I am not on the list. I leave this to the discretion of Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Since the hon. member raised the matter in the House, his request was heard and is now part of the record.


Alex Kindy: Mr. Speaker, I want to be on the list of those who voted against the bill, since I was in the House. The procedure seems rather outdated.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Your request was duly noted, and the Chair will take appropriate action, if necessary.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.


Mr. Fred J. Mifflin (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious subject. I want to speak on this and at the outset to say how much I appreciated the comments from the hon. member for Labrador who has a lot of credibility in this area. He is a professional educator and is well known in Newfoundland for the work he has done on education. I may say that his family is from a group of educators. His brother is a doctor at Memorial University whom I know quite well. You might say that the entire family has been dedicated to the education of Newfoundlanders.
I appreciate the conviction with which the hon. member spoke. I wish I had the wide range of knowledge that he has on the subject. I detected in his delivery a great and compassionate concern for those who are being educated. We all share that with him. We could not substantiate it as well. It is with conviction that we speak on the lack of appreciation. I do have a certain compassion for the budget difficulties.
It is after all a question of priorities. We, as a country, have been told time and time again that there are solutions to the problem of competitiveness, which is a buzz word but it is a very important word these days. In order to be competitive, we have to do a number of things. We hire Harvard professors to tell us this. We do government studies to do this. The answer is always the same. We know what the problem is. The problem is that we need to be focusing more of our attention or giving better priority to the scientists and to science and technology, research and development. We need to be focusing more on education.
Anything that I have seen in the last year or so on the subject leads me to believe that somebody is not paying attention to the requirement to focus our attention and to look at the priorities.
We are looking at 5 million young Canadians who every year go to school in primary and secondary education. We are looking at 68 universities. We are looking at close to 530,000 post-secondary education students and we are looking for, as the hon. member for Ottawa Centre said, somewhere in the vicinity of a $45 billion to $50 billion expenditure. That is roughly the same that we spend on health. That is a large chunk of money if you look at the money as a total allocation.
I see that as an input, but what do I see as an output? I see, as the hon. member for Labrador mentioned, a 30 per cent high school drop-out rate in secondary education. For 10 young Canadians who start grade nine education, seven of them will graduate from high school. That is only part of the problem. For those seven out of the 10 who graduate, only 72 per cent of them will go on to formalized training, not just post-secondary education in a university, but apprenticeship training or vocational colleges.
You may say that 72 per cent is not bad. It is greater than 50 per cent. When you compare that to the United States, the equivalent number is 87 per cent and in Japan, it is 92 per cent. We are really off the mark on that one.
What else do I see? I see a reduction in the amount of money we are putting in research and development. We have one of the lowest inputs either per capita or as a percentage of our GNP. No matter how you look at the statistics, our record is far from brilliant and it is getting less brilliant every year.
March 19, 1992

What are we doing with education? With this dismal record of high school drop-outs and a very poor record compared with our competitors in the United States and Japan-and I could quote other statistics for Germany, Sweden and other parts of the world, but I think I make my point on that-we are cutting back on educational allowances to those provinces in particular that can least afford to absorb that kind of a monstrous cut.
Two or three speakers ago talked about the province of Ontario. There is no question but that it does have a problem and I sympathize with it. However, in the province of Newfoundland where I come from transfers to the provincial government make up 50 per cent of the budget. If money is cut from education it has to be found somewhere, particularly when the money in education is grouped with another high priority item like health care. They do not give a lot of hope for either the future of competitiveness or the future of health care.
I would be prepared to get into a debate in this House any time about what the priority items should be in our country. But all along one has been health care. We have had the best record in the world in health care. In education, I do not think it has been quite as good, but we have always had Canadians whom we could have been proud of in the field of education, in science and in technology.
I want to give some idea of how proud that record was. Getting into the real world and the world that I know a lot more about than education, I recall as a naval officer the innovations that were brought about by scientists who were associated with the navy during World War II and post war. They resulted in the development of some innovative features that are being used by all countries. I will give a couple of examples.
First was the development of a variable depth sonar. It allowed a sound transfuser to get below the sound gradients that are always present in the water. Essentially it allowed submarines to be detected at 10 to 20 times what they normally could be detected at with a sonar mounted in the hull of the ship.
That was developed by two Canadian scientists who worked for the naval research establishment during World War II. I am very proud that I happened to have known the family of one of those scientists. The variable depth sonar from World War II took roughly 10 years to develop. The prototype was developed, tested and put
Government Orders
into production by Canada. Practically every navy of the world, even the Soviets when they were our fiercest enemy, employed exactly that scientific knowledge and prototype to conduct their naval operations.
Similarly with helicopters at sea. The haul-down mechanism was used and is used in practically all navies now. The rapid securing device for a helicopter that operates from a smaller ship than an aircraft carrier, a frigate or a destroyer, was totally designed, conceived, tested, trialed and produced in Canada.
Those are two examples of the things that made us competitive with the rest of the world. We were more than competitive; we were winners in that regard.
With the record we have examined, what we have seen in the last five or six years, and what we project for the future, I wonder if we will be able to have politicians who can stand in the House of Commons and boast about these kinds of achievements? I fear that the answer may not be in the affirmative.
I do not like this bill. I do not like the reduction in moneys, and I do not like the way the money for provinces that can least afford to absorb the costs is being cut back.
As a final note, this is a very timely subject for me because I met this morning with a professional educator from Newfoundland. He was here to speak as a Newfoundlander but not on education in Newfoundland. He has a Ph.D. in education and he talked about education from a federal viewpoint. Mr. Speaker, if you think the hon. member for Labrador and I are concerned by the presentations we have put forward, I can assure you it would seem very mild compared with the concern shown by the gentleman and his colleague in my office this morning. Both of them are on education boards, are professional educators and are involved day after day after day. It is their livelihood. They are very concerned.
I would ask the government to reconsider, refocus and repriorize so that education and health gets more importance.


Mrs. Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, like my colleagues from the east who have spoken before me, I have to say that I have a lot of concern as to the contents of this bill as they relate to transfer payments that would be going to the east and Established Programs Financing in health and in post-secondary education.

March 19, 1992
Government Orders
When we talk about anything to do with equalization in transfer payments, anyone who comes from the east knows that equalization payments are very important to the eastern provinces. The percentage of their budgets is extremely high in terms of how they pay for the services that each provincial government provides to its people in the provinces.
This bill wants to change the base year for those payments from 1987-88. They calculate it over five years. They want to make the base year for two years only, 1992-93. The government says that it is because the Department of Finance wants to review the legislation on equalization and the transfer payment system and that two years should be enough time. But there is no time limit to this review. It seems to be in the hands of the officials of the Department of Finance.
We know that there are very troubled times in Canada presently. I am sure the revenues the government is receiving from the Canadian people in terms of income tax and in terms of distributing back the wealth it acquires through the taxation system should be greatly reduced this year.
I would prefer to see some type of action by this government to say why. If people were working taxes would be coming in; they could pay income tax. We are paying out far more in unemployment insurance and in social assistance under the Canada Assistance Plan than was anticipated. A couple of years ago we had a Minister of Finance who kept talking about the overheated economy in Ontario, letting interest rates go higher and having to do something about the overheated economy.
What do we have now? Ontario is almost a have not province. Forget who is in power. That was referred to earlier in debate here. The former Minister of Finance, the now Minister for International Trade, without showing us the documents, says we are going to do great under a North American free trade agreement. He is the one who was saying a year or two ago that we had to bring in legislation to cool down the overheated economy in Ontario. The government capped the Canada Assistance Plan vis-a-vis the amount of growth in Ontario for social services and particularly social assistance.
I have a lot of concern about this bill. I know it will be going to committee. I think there should be a lot of study done. We on this side have provided the government with a package of trying to get people back to work, using the unemployment insurance program and the infrastructures that are in place to get people back to work. The municipalities across Canada have said: "Provide us with the working money to keep people going. We can put up the infrastructure". This government has not listened to us.
Maybe after that meeting with the provinces next week the Prime Minister is talking about there will be something for infrastructure and getting people back to work rather than paying out for social assistance and for unemployment insurance or taxing the unemployment insurance fund.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: Order, please. The member's time has expired.

Before going any further, I would like to inform the hon. member for Calgary Northeast that upon due consideration, his request was ruled in order, so that his name will appear in Hansard on the list of members who voted against Bill C-13.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan, Mr. Stu-pich, has given me written notice that he will be unable to present his motion under Private Members' Business on Friday, March 20, 1992. Since it was impossible to arrange for an exchange of positions in the order of precedence, pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(a), I ask the Clerk to drop this order to the bottom of the order of precedence.

Pursuant to Standing Order 94(2)(b), private members' hour will thus be suspended and the House will continue with the business before it prior to private members' hour.
It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 30(6), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
March 19, 1992



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Lynn Hunter: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should undertake an inventory nationally, internationally and of the global commons, identifying places of historical, natural and cultural importance which may be threatened, and negotiate for their protection.
She said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to start debate on this motion this afternoon, particularly in the context of what has occurred today with the passage of Bill C-13. This does seem to be an environmental week in the House.
We are just months away from the earth summit which is going to be held in Brazil in June. At that summit the world is going to have to examine the environment and development challenges before it.
Canada's role in the international community is a very important one. We stand as a role model for the world on many fronts. The intent of this motion is that Canada can improve that image.
I want to talk a bit about the history behind this motion. It flowed out of events that were going on in my riding of Saanich-Gulf Islands, in the Gulf Islands portion of that riding which is the most beautiful part of Canada. It is an archipelago of islands off the coast of Vancouver Island, between the mainland and Vancouver Island. If members have not visited there, I suggest that they do because it is a beautiful place.
However, with its beauty there are problems, the problems of development and over-development. There are increasing confrontations between residents of the islands and developers, some on-island developers and some from offshore. Concerned with the preservation of these beautiful islands, I saw that these pressures were not going to decrease; they were going to increase. Therefore on June 2, 1991, at the beginning of Canadian Environment Week, I called for the establishment of a biosphere reserve for the Gulf Islands.
Private Members' Business
A biosphere reserve was something I had known a little bit about in my previous occupation working for OXFAM Canada, doing international work. The UNESCO program has played a leading role since 1971 in establishing a global network of biosphere reserves.
The preparation for Brazil 1992 is a logical framework for advancing initiatives which demonstrate long-term thinking. A comprehensive inventory of lands, water and resources would be conducted. A monitoring system would be put in place and the region's carrying capacity would be assessed and embodied in the biosphere system.
This motion before us this afternoon fits into that framework. It is asking that the Canadian government take on that task of providing an inventory.
I want to talk a little bit and flesh out what the concept of a biosphere reserve is. Biosphere research, pilot projects, education and training have been established in most countries through UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Sustainable development, applied research, resource management, healthy productivity and monitoring of cultural ecosystems and human interaction are integral components of the biosphere mandate.
Each of the 111 nations participating in UNESCO's Man and the Biosphere Program are asked to identify a strategy for co-operation with the international action plan. Those figures are as of 1987. I will cite what the mandate is: conserve the ecosystems of the world's natural regions; recognize people and their activities as integral parts of the environment-so this is not apart, this is recognition that human activity is part of the biosphere-encourage monitoring, research, education, training and demonstration of natural and managed ecosystems.
It should also be an example of voluntary co-operation in resource management for both conservation and human use. It should be a place where local people form the management committee. That is the criteria for a biosphere reserve.
Canada's experience in establishing biosphere reserves is regarded as a model for local participatory process. Using that experience gained in the 15 years that

March 19, 1992
Private Members' Business
biospheres have been operative in Canada may help in developing a biosphere reserve in the Gulf Islands.
Of 276 biosphere reserves in 71 countries, the six in Canada include: Mont Saint Hilaire, St. Lawrence Lowlands near Montreal, Quebec; Waterton, Waterton Lakes National Park, southern Alberta; Long Point, sand-pit and dune formation at Lake Erie, Ontario; Riding Mountain National Park near Winnipeg, Manitoba; Charlevoix, the St. Lawrence River Valley near Quebec City in Quebec; and, the Niagara Escarpment on the Niagara River to Lake Huron, southern Ontario.
The officially proposed biosphere reserves in Canada include: Isabella Bay, including a whale sanctuary in the Northwest Territories; Lake Superior, jointly sponsored by Canada's Man and the Biosphere and the U.S.A. Man and the Biosphere Programs, Ontario; Lac Champlain, an independent reserve in Quebec; and, the Algonquin-Petawawa sustainable forestry model in Ontario.
I would like the people of the Gulf Islands to know that they are in very good company should they decide that a biosphere reserve is the way that they would like to protect their beautiful archipelago.
The long-range goal of Man and the Biosphere Program is to create a world-wide network of biosphere reserves, to include examples of all of the globe's main ecological systems with their different patterns of human use and adaptations to them.
The evolution of the biosphere reserve concept is an interesting one. It came out of the International Biological Program of the 1960s and the early 1970s. The International Biological Program's Conservation of Ecosystems Subprogram, whose participants commissioned the establishment of a global network of protected ecological areas for conservation and research, led to this concept of biosphere reserves.
The task force then envisioned that a biosphere reserve would include a core area for strict protection of natural ecosystems, surrounded by a buffer zone, where uses could be managed co-operatively in ways that protect the core area.
The description of the buffer zone has since been amplified to include two categories of multiple use areas; one for legally designated units where human uses are
carefully planned and managed, and the other for areas where voluntary co-operation among agencies, local communities and the public is encouraged. This is called a transition zone.
My vision for the Gulf Islands would be a cluster of these communities, rather than one core and radiating from that one core, many cores with the transition zones around it. This would fit the needs of the people of the Gulf Islands. It would preserve the bounty that is there, both marine and on the ground. It would also recognize the international aspects of our community and how it links with the rest of the world.
The Canadian government is also on record as being committed to the completion of the national parks system by the year 2000. My motion, talking about an inventory nationally, internationally and of the global common fits in with an initiative that the government has given an undertaking on, that is the completion of the national parks system. It also fits in with the international initiative of a biosphere program.
In conclusion, Canada is in a good position to support international initiatives, demonstrating practical measures to implement local and global sustainable development and conservation. This would enhance Canada's position with regard to the biodiversity convention being presented to the Brazil 1992 earth summit.
I know that the Secretary of State for External Affairs in recent meetings with environmentalists has said that the expectations from that earth summit are way beyond what is achievable. I think that the Government of Canada, by agreeing to support this motion, would be able to demonstrate that Canada does have long-term thinking on this and that there are demonstrated projects here in Canada with the biosphere reserve.
There are those that are projected, and I would like to add the Gulf Islands as another one, if the people of the Gulf Islands are in agreement that a local committee be formed and the Gulf Islands biosphere reserve could be added to the 276 biosphere reserves that the world currently enjoys.


Mr. Jean-Marc Robitaille (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to participate in the debate on the motion of the New Democrat member, who emphasized her interest in the preservation of historical and other sites.
March 19, 1992

We witness almost daily examples of destruction of our world heritage, whether in the Persian Gulf or Yugoslavia, because of war or extreme climate phenomena. It is a good thing that a member of Parliament asks the Canadian government to do its share to put a stop to that destruction. That the government undertakes an identifying places of historical, natural and cultural importance which may be threatened, and negotiates for their protection are good initiatives. These measures would certainly reflect the concerns of many Canadians.
However, such inventories already exist, thanks to the concerted efforts of international organizations, governmental and non-governmental, as well as of their member states.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature, whose head office is in Switzerland, looks after natural heritage sites, while the International Council of Monuments and Sites, whose head office is in Paris, looks after cultural and historical heritage sites.
As for UNESCO, it is responsible, through a World Heritage Sites Committee that implements the International Convention on Heritage Sites, for the most important natural or historical heritage sites.
Moreover, UNESCO sponsors the Biosphere Reserves Program, which also helps to protect those sites deemed representative of the main ecosystems of the world.
Incidently, the Canadian government plays an active role, through its financial and logistic support, to ensure the efficiency of these institutions. The green plan even provides for an increase in Canadian contributions to UNESCO's World Heritage Fund and to the International Union for Conservation of Nature, and those contributions have already been made.
The International Union for Conservation of Nature was created in 1948 at an international conference held in Fontainebleau. It is a union of sovereign states as well as governmental and non-governmental agencies gathered together to promote a sound use of natural resources throughout the world. Among the numerous achievements of that organization, one is of particular interest to us here. The IUCN, in conjunction with the
Private Members' Business
World Wildlife Federation and the United Nations Environment Program, has established a world-wide inventory of natural sites. These are classified by level of protection and their status is updated regularly, with special emphasis on those at risk for one reason or another. This is the job of the World Conservation Monitoring Center operating from Cambridge, England.
To identify the dreadful state of a site is one thing, but the situation must also be corrected. Funded both publicly and privately, the IUCN can, upon request, help a country with problem identification and solving. There is even room for prevention, in the IUCN's activities as it also assists in the development of management plans for protected sites and in the training of personnel.
The International Council of Monuments and Sites, ICOMOS, founded in 1964, does essentially the same thing with fewer means and different structures with regard to monuments and sites of historical and cultural importance through its UNESCO/ICOMOS documentation center. The role of this center is to compile and maintain material on the conservation, protection, use and promotion of monuments and sites.
UNESCO, as depository of the World Heritage Convention, identifies and assigns special status to the most significant heritage sites, whether natural or cultural. There are presently 340 such sites in some 70 countries. Funds, albeit modest, are also available to provide technical assistance and emergency relief upon request.
At the present time the committee focuses mainly on heritage sites not related to western culture, such as those found in Africa for instance.
The 1990 meeting of the committee was held in Canada, and two Canadian officials have chaired the committee over the years.
Mr. Speaker, ten of these national heritage sites are located in Canada, including the Kluane National Park in the Yukon; Anthony Island, off South Moresby in British Columbia; the Nahanni National Park in the Northwest Territories; as well as the Head-Smashed-In Buffalo Jump and the Dinosaur Provincial Park in Alberta. World heritage sites, whether they are at risk or not, are well-known and properly inventoried.

March 19, 1992
Private Members' Business
Now, is there a case for starting negotiations to protect these sites? A record of international treaties and other agreements on the environment published by the United Nations Environment Program, lists as many as 140 international agreements.
In a UNESCO publication on conventions and recommendations relating to the protection of our cultural heritage, three conventions and six recommendations are listed. The oldest convention, which goes back to 1954, deals with protecting cultural assets in case of armed conflict.
There is no lack of inventories of world heritage sites or legal protection for those sites. However, we are too often faced with a lack of political will, resources and interest, with ignorance and extreme meteorological phenomena such as typhoons, floods, tornadoes and wars as well. The remedy demands a lot of time, money and effort.
However, there are certain threats to both natural and historical sites that cause trees and stones to deteriorate, forces against which governments have decided to launch an offensive. I am referring to air pollution, whether we are talking about acid rain or climatic change.
It is known that eminent researchers expect global warming to raise the level of the seas. In fact, the Standing Committee on the Environment tabled a very detailed report on the matter. Rising sea levels may flood many coastal sites. Venice is a good example. However, there are more, like Goree Island in Senegal and the medieval city of Thebes, that may also be flooded, or at least suffer irreversible damage.
I realize I am running out of time, Mr. Speaker, but I would have liked to mention many more examples to show that much is already being done in this respect. I hope that this information, modest though it is, will give members a better idea of what is being done at the international level and how Canada is actively involved in protecting natural, historical and cultural sites, which are indeed a unique heritage.
That is our position. We, as a government, intend to continue our positive action and remain very actively involved.


Ross Belsher: Mr. Speaker, indeed I find it a pleasure to speak to this motion here before us tonight, offered to us by the hon. member for Saanich- Gulf Islands.
When speaking of the Gulf Islands in British Columbia, I know whereof she speaks and it is indeed a place that is very beautiful. I certainly encourage members opposite, particularly my friend from Newfoundland, to come out and see our Gulf Islands.


Fred J. Mifflin: I have sailed out there. A great place.


Ross Belsher: You have sailed out there. The subject we are debating tonight is one of great significance to our country and it is also one that has long been a priority of this government. I am delighted to be able to address the question here tonight. Also, I would like to propose some approaches that should be followed in the future.
During this crucial time in our history when fundamental questions have been raised about the nature of our country and the relationships between government and citizens, more than ever it is important to ensure that our precious heritage is not only protected, but it is also presented in a manner to assist Canadians to understand the nature of our country. It is my belief that only in the understanding where we have come from will we be able to discern where it is we want to be.
Let me first briefly deal with the points raised in the motion with respect to the international arena. At the international level, much has been accomplished through various conventions of which Canada is a signatory.
Work is continuing through the actions of the World Heritage Committee and like international agencies. Canada, of course, played and continues to play a significant role in the activities of that committee and likewise has taken an active role in bodies such as ICOMOS, the International Council on Monuments and Sites, the IUCN, the International Union for the Conservation of Nature and the ICCROM, the International Centre for the Study and Preservation and Restoration of Cultural Property. These are all new acronyms to me and I am sure others are not familiar with them either.
March 19, 1992

It is worth noting that Canada hosted the 1990 general session of the World Heritage Committee in Banff. In July 1991, the first ever meeting of world heritage cities took place in Quebec City. In the coming year, Canada will host the annual meeting of ICOM. This is an indication of the important role our nation plays in assisting the essential works of these bodies which are dedicated to the protection of the world's cultural and natural heritage.
But to return to the question of the adequacy of our cultural and natural heritage programs in Canada, it is useful to understand that we as Canadians are surrounded by and are part of what can accurately be described as a cultural environment within the broader confines of the natural environment.
To elaborate on the importance of this relationship between the natural and cultural environments, let me quote from the 1982 United Nations Charter for Nature. It states: "Civilization is rooted in nature, which has shaped human culture and influenced all artistic and scientific achievements".
In other words, it is logical that we are a society whose identity is tied inextricably to our natural and cultural environment. Our geography and our history define the essence of Canada. They are the influences that identify Canada and Canadians to ourselves as well as to the rest of the world.
It is essential, as I have already noted, to explain and to preserve our cultural heritage in order to make informed decisions. We must preserve and present our natural heritage so that we can better understand how we interact with the environment as individuals and as a society.
It is fundamental to recognize that the achievement of these objectives is not solely the responsibility of the federal government. Only through the concerted efforts of other levels of government and activist voluntary organizations and individuals will our goals be achieved.
Moreover, if we are to work in harmony on heritage matters, an interest whose time appears to have come, it is important that we should be able to continue to walk the tightrope linking the past, the present and the future. And we should be willing to run the risk of questioning our current vision of things.
Private Members' Business
More than ever, as we near the end of the century, it is important to make sure that the people of Canada have a sense of our history if they are to meet the challenges of the 21st century. This is obviously something that cannot be accomplished in a couple of days.
"Culture cannot be pulled out of a hat," wrote the French writer, Julien Green. Although shaped by our past, it takes on aspects of current trends and expresses the fundamental values that consciously or unconsciously guide all our actions.
For we Canadians, the challenge consists of coming to terms with the country's cultural diversity, of identifying the varied and sometimes conflicting aspirations of its people, and of providing for the continuity and renewal of values deemed to be essential. In short, it is knowing who we are and preserving that identity.
The existence of a strong sense of belonging is one of the conditions essential to the survival of Canada as a distinct political, economic, social and cultural entity in North America. It is therefore important to be well aware of our heritage, which is the tangible record of the influences that have made us what we are, if we are to have a clear picture of ourselves and share a vision of the future. As a nation, I believe that we have long recognized that fundamental requirement.
For example, the year 1842 saw the establishment of the Geological Survey of Canada, an organization that would play a determining role in the creation of our national museums. In 1927 the Geological Survey of Canada museum became the National Museum of Canada. The National Gallery of Canada can trace its roots back to 1880. The National Archives of Canada dates back to 1872.
The beginnings of the Canadian Parks Service, an agency with fundamental responsibilities for our national heritage, go back to 1885, when an Order in Council set aside land adjacent to hot springs discovered near Banff when the railway was being pushed across Canada. This 26-square kilometre area was destined to become Canada's first National Park.
Now a part of Environment Canada, the parks service exercises a shared responsibility for protection of our nation's magnificent natural and cultural heritage. The service manages some of the largest areas of land and natural resources in the world, some of the world's most majestic parks, many of which contain absolutely unique ecosystems and are recognized as such by international

March 19, 1992
Private Members' Business
accords. The service also has responsibility for much of Canada's built heritage such as the fortress of Louis-bourg, the fortifications of Old Quebec City, the Rideau Canal, the St. Roch in the province from which the hon. member opposite who proposed this motion and I come, and similar sites in every part of the country.
For more than 100 years we as a nation have been setting aside such fundamental aspects of our heritage. The Historic Sites and Monuments Boards of Canada began the process of commemorating the nation's past in 1919. The 1951 Massey-Levesque Commission on National Development and Arts, Letters and Sciences led to the formation of the board's role with the Historic Sites and Monuments Act of 1953.
In 1972, Transport Canada transferred several noncommercial canals to the parks service. The Rideau, Trent-Severn, Chambly and several others now play a role in heritage protection and interpretation blended with recreation, tourism and transportation.
The Canadian heritage river system, a partnership between Canada, eight provinces and both territories was established in 1984. It is a mechanism for preserving the heritage values of some of our great rivers. To date, 21 rivers have been nominated to the heritage river system totalling 4,342 kilometres of waterway. The discovery and settlement of our nation was made possible by these rivers and the importance of our nationhood cannot be overestimated.
Similarly, the Treasury Board policy on federal heritage buildings encourages the preservation of federal buildings that represent an important part of our national heritage.
More recently, the Heritage Railway Stations Protection Act came into effect providing an important mechanism to protect another aspect of our national heritage. Like our heritage rivers, the national railways network was a major element in the development of Canada. This legislation requires railway companies to seek government authority to alter, demolish or otherwise dispose of designated heritage railway stations.
In the field of cultural heritage, the National Library was established in 1953. It has since played a crucial role
in preserving the documentation of many facets of our heritage.
Many important steps forward in the heritage field were taken in the 1960s. The National Museums Corporation was established in 1968 and for 22 years it would guide the destiny of the museums in Ottawa.
The Archaeological Survey of Canada established in 1971 has acquired an enviable reputation in the field of archaeological research.
In 1972 the museum policy made possible the creation of several important institutions and programs, including the Canadian Conservation Institute, the Canadian Heritage Information Network and the Museums Assistance Program.
In 1973 the government established the Heritage Canada Foundation, a non-profit private organization dedicated to advancing the cause of heritage preservation.
Mr. Speaker, I have about two more minutes. Could I have the consent of the House to finish?


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Ross Belsher: Thank you very much, hon. members.
During the 1980s the government continued to build upon this solid base, increasing funding for non-profit cultural organizations, developing legislation such as the new National Archives of Canada Act approved in 1987 and the proposed archaeological legislation for the preservation and development of our archaeological heritage.
Major increased funding for museums has been announced within the past year. Our museums can take pride in being at the forefront of cultural heritage in their role as places where the past, the present and the future come together.
Similarly, our national system of 34 national parks, 110 national historic sites and historic canals represent a major investment in the heritage of our nation.
The government recently added South Moresby, Ellesmere Island, Grasslands and the Bruce Peninsula to the system of national parks and completed the long outstanding arrangements for Pacific Rim National Park Reserve. Furthermore, we added the Grosse lie, Laurier
March 19, 1992

House and the Gulf of Georgia cannery to the national historic sites network.
This brings me to an initiative of this government that will have a major influence in the future development of our heritage programs. The green plan, our comprehensive guide to the perfection of Canada's environment, includes several major initiatives that will enhance the broad base of the programs that I have outlined today.
Completion of our system of national parks so that all our national ecosystems are represented is fundamental to the green plan.
Similarly, inclusion of major new theme areas in our system of national historic sites is a complementary initiative that will ensure major aspects of our cultural heritage are preserved for the benefit of future generations. Themes such as ranching, forestry, fishing, immigration, land settlement, and many others are not yet adequately represented in the system. Fifteen new themes will be added as part of our national green plan commitment.
Flowing from the green plan, Environment Canada has developed a new Canadian parks service policy that has now been released for public consultation. It includes a cultural resource management policy that breaks new ground in setting standards for the protection and management of the nation's cultural heritage.
In short, what I have been attempting to make clear is that the Government of Canada over a span of many years has been doing precisely what is suggested in the motion before us today. However, we have been doing it in a co-operative manner, both at home in Canada with a wide range of partners and abroad through the international agencies charged with such responsibilities and in concert with other nations.
I am pleased that the hon. member opposite has brought this motion to the House in order that we may review the progress that has been achieved in this very important field of endeavour and pause to consider the challenges that remain to be addressed.
However, it is my considered opinion that the appropriate course is to continue with the directions that have been set out through our existing policies and programs, to continue to seek out and to develop the partnerships
Adjournment Debate
that will enable us to achieve our shared goals, to continue the important work that Canada has embarked on with a number of international agencies, and to ensure that the necessary resources are provided to enable this work to be carried out in an effective manner.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: As there are no more members who wish to speak, the period for private members' business is now over.

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


SITTING SUSPENDED
The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: I therefore suspend the sitting of the House until six o'clock, at which time we will proceed to the adjournment debate.
At 5.37 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 is deemed to have been moved.
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, on February 27 of this year, the Conservative government abolished the Court Challenges Program. Since 1978, that program has been essential in helping clarify the constitutional rights of women, aboriginal people, racial minorities and linguistic and ethnic groups before the courts.
In reply to a question I raised in the House on February 28, the Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship said that even in these times of constitutional crisis, that program had to be abolished because, and I quote: "After hundreds of cases one would imagine that we now have that base of jurisprudence".

March 19, 1992
Adjournment Debate
In reply to other questions raised on that same day, the minister stated that the program should be supported by other groups, maybe at the provincial level, or by non-governmental organizations. Let us examine the three cases, the three issues.
First of all, he mentioned that there was enough jurisprudence. The financial support that was given led to major decisions by the Supreme Court of Canada. The jurisprudence is far from being complete. The witnesses that appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons on March 10th, 1992 pointed to that. The director of the Court Challenges Program, among others, said: "The courts have so far had very few opportunities to interpret sections 16 to 20 of the charter concerning services offered in both official languages by the governments of Canada and New Brunswick". She also said: "Because of the inherent slowness of the judicial process and of dilatory procedures often used by federal and provincial governments, the vast majority of test cases brought up by special interest groups representing women, disabled persons and minorities, as well as by other groups likely to benefit from the support given by the program, are still before the trial courts or a court of appeal". She also added that no court had yet ruled on the implementation of the language equality rights provided in section 15 of the charter.
Referring to the Mahe case now before the Supreme Court, Gerard Bertrand, chairman of the language rights committee, recognized that the implementation of section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would probably produce numerous court challenges in the years to come. Mr. Justice Dixon of the Supreme Court of Canada then replied: "It is impossible at this stage of development of section 23 to foresee all the circumstances pertaining to its enforcement."
Given these facts, it would seem unrealistic to conclude that the case law is sound and complete.
The second observation is that the program should be supported by the provinces. It is the minister who said that. He stated that the program should be supported by others, namely the provinces. He is suggesting that the provinces play the part of both judge and defendant. However, it is those very provinces that all in all act like offenders in all the cases brought before the courts. Let us take the Mahe case dealing with the educational rights provided for in section 23 of the charter and
involving the Alberta government. Let us take the Ford decision concerning the Brown shoes in Quebec dealing with the freedom of expression and the right to use languages other than French as regards public billposting which involves the province of Quebec. There is also the Forest case involving the province of Manitoba and judicial and legislative bilingualism. In 1978, again a province was challenged by a citizen.
To give provinces the responsibility of protecting minorities is somewhat the same as telling the Canadian people that we are going to put the fox in the hen house.
Now let us talk about the costs. The minister said that funds had to be cut. Well, the budget had been renewed in May 1990 at a cost of $13.75 million over five years. The expenditure would amount to $2.7 million. That is 10 cents per Canadian per year. This is not a big amount.
I plead with the Government. When the Constitution of our country is being scrutinized, the collective rights of Quebec, of native people and all the other groups and communities which will be before us should have a chance to be challenged in court.


Vincent Della Noce: Mr. Speaker, I would like first to commend my colleague for his remarks and his concern for the cause of official language minority groups.
A question was raised recently in this House about the government's decision to stop funding the Court Challenges Program. I must commend the hon. member who raised it for his concern for the linguistic minorities of Canada. However, I want to assure him that our commitment toward our country's linguistic duality remains as strong as ever.
The Court Challenges Program was established in 1978. Its purpose was to ensure equality to linguistic minorities all across the country. Since then we have made a great deal of progress in the matter of equality of all Canadians, as evidenced by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms proclaimed in 1982.
As you might have read in the Official Languages annual report of 1989-1990, the Official Languages Act administered by the Secretary of State remains a fundamental piece of legislation for linguistic minorities. Its protection applies to both anglophones in Quebec and francophones in the rest of the country. It gives the department the mandate to support and further the development of linguistic minorities and to promote the
March 19, 1992

full recognition and use of both official languages. This mandate is still valid.
The rights of these citizens are entrenched in the Constitution so that everyone knows of their existence. There is no way this government will give that up. However, the legal system is only one way to protect human rights in Canada. We must continue to develop other mechanisms, by negotiating or cooperating with other governments and interest groups in order to guarantee language and social rights.
Mr. Speaker, you are indicating my time has expired. I would have liked to read the response my colleague got from the minister, which is quite clear.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, on November 24, 1991, I and thousands of other Canadians in eastern Nova Scotia came together in a march of protest at Centre 200 in Sydney, Nova Scotia.
The following day I came back to Ottawa, stood in the House and asked the Minister of Finance if he would use his discretionary authority and exercise his responsibilities to order the Minister responsible for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency as well as the officials of that particular department to meet with municipalities, labour and business in industrial Cape Breton in order to provide some needed employment in that area of Canada.
Unfortunately, my request was denied. On that particular day, Sunday, November 24, 1991, "jobs and dignity" was the slogan of the marchers. I stand in this House tonight to ask the parliamentary secretary if he will make direct representations to his senior cabinet colleagues in order to provide some necessary and meaningful employment in eastern Nova Scotia.
The unemployment in Waterford, Dominion, Glace Bay, Sydney, Cape Breton county, Louisbourg and all of those surrounding communities is at a chronic level. It requires the political will of the Government of Canada. I am the first to admit that no government acting by itself can resolve the problems of chronic unemployment, nor
Adjournment Debate
is it the panacea in terms of creating jobs in eastern Nova Scotia but it must demonstrate political will. It must call together the partners: provincial, municipal, labour and business, in order to implement a plan which will put Canadians back to work. They are individuals who wish to contribute to Canadian society. If one were to review the history of that part of Canada, one would find clearly that those men and women made the ultimate sacrifice in World War I and World War II. There were numbers unprecedented for small communities such as those.
I ask here today, as I have asked time and time and time again for the Government of Canada, because of the plight of the unemployed in that area of our country, to come to their assistance. The first meaningful task must be to sit down with those players who are involved. It must come with a plan and to provide the necessary financing to implement that plan. I sincerely request that the parliamentary secretary give the serious weight of his consideration to this request because it is fundamental to those Canadians, their families and to the community at large that they have an opportunity to participate meaningfully in Canadian society. I ask this of the parliamentary secretary, whom I know to be an able and fair-minded individual.


Mr. Patrick Boyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member referred to his participation in the march and in a subsequent statement of his ongoing commitment, which is one I share and I think any government in this country shares, to see that economic prosperity exists even in those parts of our country that have the greatest hurdles to overcome in terms of their structure and their indigenous economy.
He said the first thing that should be done is to sit down, have some meetings and make a plan. The good news is that this has happened. After the march of concern in November, I am informed that Enterprise Cape Breton Corporation was among those that did meet at a follow-up meeting on December 5, which also involved labour, community as well as government representatives.


Adjournment Debate
What the member is asking has happened. With respect to the second part of his question, the plan, even before these plans were established, ACOA and the government had recognized the need for special efforts in Cape Breton. In 1986, Enterprise Cape Breton introduced new programs in the area. The minister has already referred to the many millions of dollars that have been spent and further economic activity generated.
The solution that has been settled on by those who have dealt with this, most particularly Mr. Brait who had been asked to review the plan the member is calling for, recommended that the agencies all be put together into a single entity. That has now happened. The government has done that. This was part of the February budget to further implement this plan.


Mr. Lyle Dean MacWilliam (Okanagan -Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago, I think it was back in November 1991, I raised this question with the Prime Minister. My concern was at that time that Canadian farmers were afraid that this particular government might abandon its system of protecting poultry, egg and dairy production as a result of the ongoing GATT negotiations.
I emphasized at the time that the future of Canada's agriculture community hung in the balance. I asked the Prime Minister at that time and was answered by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, what particular measures the government was prepared to take to address this deepening crisis in our agricultural industry.
Subsequent to that question being raised in the House, we have had a number of debates with respect to the future of article XI, which is the protection of Canada's marketing boards and supply management structure within the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. The concern has been raised increasingly among the dairy farmers across Canada that the government is preparing to abandon its support of article XI.
So far the government has failed to persuade the other 107 members of the GATT panel to strengthen and clarify the supply management provisions that are within article XI of the GATT agreement.
I want to reiterate just what is at stake should Canada's system of supply management become unravelled as a result of the government's lack of true commitment to maintaining article XI. We have 100,000 Canadian jobs at stake; 38,000 farmers across Canada, some 22,900 employees of those farmers and some
36,000	processing jobs. When you look at the economic impact, there is some $4.7 billion in potential losses in farm production in Canada and some $5.5 billion potential loss in processing. That could result in a loss of over $10 billion to the Canadian economy should supply management become unravelled in the near future.
I want to point out at this time that the loss of supply management through the ongoing negotiations under the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade will do to rural Canada what the free trade agreement has done to urban Canada. That is real genuine cause for concern in our agriculture community. If we lose our marketing boards, our producers will not even cover their costs of production and they would, in short order, be forced out of business.
The government has spun a good line in terms of its renewed commitment to article XI and the concept of supply management in Canada. But in fact when it brought down its first proposal to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade back in 1987 this proposal was not in support of supply management. This proposal was not in support of the strengthening of article XI. This proposal was, in no uncertain terms, a proposal for the tariffication of agricultural goods. Not only did the government at that time support tariffication, but it actually proposed measures for the introduction and phase-in of tariffs on agricultural commodities.
I take note, Mr. Speaker, that my time is up. What I am saying is that the government seems to be duplicitous in this-


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister Responsible for Constitutional Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to this question has not changed. Canada's position has not changed; it has always stayed the same. I do not know where my hon. colleague has been, but recently we have had many demands and trips and delegations sent to Geneva to negotiate. Some think that we changed our position, but it is still the same and it still maintains the four points that we have defended from the beginning.

March 19, 1992

First of all, we seek a major reduction in subsidies. What hurts is not marketing boards internationally but rather the huge subsidies to support agriculture and production, especially in Europe and the United States. We want to have them reduced, and the GATT negotiations deal with them.
The second point we want is access to export markets. Of course if we want access to export markets, we must be able to import somewhere. As for developing the rules of GATT to clarify and strengthen article XI, we never changed our opinion on that, or on the objectives to establish a framework of rules to avoid misuse of health regulations as a way to prevent imports, for example.
That has always been sought. We never changed our mind and we keep on because the Canadian government honestly believes that marketing boards, including those for milk and poultry, have been successful and provided protection. Therefore they deserve to continue and to be defended.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, on December 6 I rose in the House and asked a couple of questions about the Emergency Preparedness Canada Centre in Arnprior, Ontario.
I should state, first of all, that the Emergency Preparedness Canada legislation was introduced in this House with great enthusiasm by the present Minister of Communications who was then Minister of National Defence. I was opposition critic at the time and we supported the legislation very strongly. I commended the minister at the time for his initiative because this legislation was brought in to replace the War Measures Act. It dealt with many things both national and international affairs.
During the election campaign in September 1988, the government announced a new building in the upgrading of the training centre in Arnprior, Ontario for the new Emergency Preparedness Canada operation. The building, it said, would be ready for operation by the end of
1990.	It is still not built today.
When I asked the question in December, the Associate Minister of National Defence was very sympathetic to the cause because she knows that this legislation deals with such items as earthquakes, hurricanes, civilian
Adjournment Debate
disobedience, train wrecks, bush fires, floods, and so on. She related it to her home province of British Columbia. The key thing here is that the Arnprior location is an ideal one. It is close to the national capital area. There is an airport in Ottawa. We opened a new airport a short time ago in Arnprior which is owned by five municipalities, including Arnprior, Renfrew, Braeside, McNabb township. People are very proud of that facility.
The new facility would add a great deal. People will come from municipalities all across Canada. People will come from provincial and federal departments for training in the various areas that I have mentioned. There is easy transportation to get to the centre.
My concern is this: I know that there has been work within departments on the planning of this. This is such an important centre at this time when we have crises arising from time to time. Emergency Preparedness Canada is supposed to handle all of these crises in our society in the best way it can. The best facilities we can have for training, of course, proves that we are indeed committed to this program.
Because it was brought in with reasonable agreement by all parties, I would like to see the government come forward and tell us where this is at right now, when this new facility is going to be upgraded, and when the residence is going to be built. It was supposed to cost about $5.5 million in 1988 or 1989 dollar terms. It is probably up to around $7 million by now. Will the parliamentary secretary inform me and my constituents tonight just what is happening with this project at the present time.
I want to emphasize that people from the various parts of Canada have found it very handy to get to for training. Of course, Canadian Forces Base Petawawa is not far from the Arnprior location. There is a lot of talent there and we appreciate very much that the numbers at the base are being greatly increased.


Patrick Boyer: Mr. Speaker, I am happy the member raised this. I share his enthusiasm for the provisions under the Emergency Preparedness Act and all that that entails. I am quite concerned this building has not been constructed yet because certainly, the one it is intended to replace is below standard. It is a dated building.

March 19, 1992
Adjournment Debate
I guess with a lot of other things that are said in the course of election campaigns, they are not necessarily fiction, but the time is a little distorted. What happened in this case certainly is that everybody I know associated with the program there is anxious that the college have the benefit of these new facilities as soon as possible.
The recessionary impact and the realities of that have caused the government to put on hold a number of projects that we would have liked to have seen done already. Certainly, the planning for this building has been done. Everything has been worked on and so it is really a matter of time. I think understanding that, if we can just accept that as part of the need for some patience and to get out of the economic problems that we are in, the government can get ahead with that.
I would like to say further to the hon. member that in my role as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, I would be very happy to go with him into his constituency and visit these facilities. I have a personal strong interest in emergency preparedness with the work I am doing to bring about an international green corps that can respond on an emergency basis to environmental disasters just as the International Red Cross responds to disasters that affect humans.
All of this is very important. Canada does have a leading role to play. As the member was saying when his time ran out, this is an important facility. Some 2,600 Canadian government officials, federal, provincial and municipal, go through there every year as do people from the private sector and voluntary organizations.
All Canadians can be very proud of it. I would like to go with the member to his riding to look at these facilities so that we can keep moving this forward as he would like to see it move forward.


Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, speaking of emergency preparedness, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to follow up on my question to the Minister of the Environment of nearly two months ago it concerned the alarming information that many of us received on our return to Parliament in early February regarding the unprecedented and unexpected rate of depletion of the ozone layer, which as we all know
protects the earth's inhabitants from the devastating effects of the sun's rays.
We perhaps had the best explanation of what is so serious about this situation and what is so inadequate about our response to date when the Globe '92 conference in Vancouver opened on Monday morning. The spokesperson for the European Community said that one of the reasons it is so difficult to get international action on these issues is that when it was a southern hemisphere problem, or we thought it was primarily a southern hemisphere problem, it was impossible for the northern countries to take action fast enough to get rid of ozone depleting substances. In January of this year we realized it was a northern hemisphere problem and suddenly we could take action.
I welcomed the minister's announcement yesterday about speeding up the date for complete elimination of the production and import of CFCs to 1995. I wonder why it took two months to do that when the United States was able to do it within a week and a half of the news from Nassau and from UNEP, and when the European Community was able to do the same within a matter of days.
None the less, the announcement from the minister yesterday falls short of what is needed to address this extremely serious question, because it does allow the continued production and import and use of HCFCs until the year 2020. That is 30 years from now. That does not seem to me a terribly urgent response to a terribly urgent problem, especially given the fact that HCFCs have been shown to be up to eight times more harmful than CFCs. Allowing the continued use of HCFCs and allowing them to be substituted for CFCs may lead us to no progress on this very urgent and serious situation of the depletion of the ozone layer.
The announcement by the minister leaves untouched such things as methyl chloroform, methane and other ozone-depleting substances that are substantially and many times more damaging than CFCs.
We have the European Community saying that by 1996 it will phase out HCFCs as well as CFCs, while Canada is waiting for 30 years to do that. Obviously it is not a question of technology or the European Community would not be able to set that kind of target. We know what can be done. I am very proud of Northern Telecom, a company in my riding and in many ridings across
March 19, 1992

Canada that has been able to completely eliminate CFCs in what was, just a year ago, thought to be an essential use. Northern Telecom is showing more leadership than the government on this issue by saving $50 million a year by eliminating CFCs, and also making its technology available free to any country in the world that wants to use it.
I ask the government for the same kind of leadership.


Jean-Guy Hudon: Canada has been successful in reducing the consumption of CFCs well in advance of the requirement of the Montreal protocol. The result of Canada's aggressive stance on the CFC phase-out is that Canadian consumption is down by 45 per cent from 1986 levels. This is well ahead of current requirements under the protocol.
I am pleased to be able to inform the House of the new control program for CFCs and other ozone-depleting substances that the federal and provincial governments have adopted. The control program involves initiatives and commitments at both the federal and provincial levels. The new program was announced yesterday in Vancouver at the meeting of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment.
The Canadian phase-out schedule for CFCs will be accelerated by one year. Production and importation of new CFCs will be phased out by December 1995 at the latest. Consideration will be given to possible limited exceptions for the health care industry. The new date is five years in advance of the current requirement of the Montreal protocol.
Provincial governments will begin implementing the
Adjournment Debate
CFC recycling and recovery programs by the end of 1992. Mandatory recovery and recycling of CFCs already in use must now become the focus of Canada's efforts to protect the ozone layer. Recovery and recycling are necessary in order to achieve the accelerated phase-out date. Recovery and recycling are also important to prevent the release of CFCs during the servicing of existing equipment like refrigeration and air conditioning and to ensure that future servicing demands can be met after production of new CFCs ceases.

As far as HCFCs are concerned, while we were ahead of our program in the other area and even able to speed it up, I think that we will also be able to take very great care in this area, because as my colleague said, some substitutes can also harm the ozone layer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. DeBlois):: The motion that the House do now adjourn is deemed to be adopted.

The House stands adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.32 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, March 20,1992