1992-03-09

Mr. John Brewin (Victoria) moved: that Bill C-310, an act respecting compensation for Canadian victims of crime travelling or posted abroad, be now read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee E.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I noticed the clock across from me has been sent off for repairs. It would be of assistance to me if I could be given a few minutes warning as I wind down to my peroration.
First of all, I appreciate the attendance of so many members in the House for this private members' bill. The bill would establish a federal criminal injuries compensation plan to cover Canadian citizens or permanent Canadian residents with protection if they are injured, while working or travelling abroad, as a result of a criminal act against them.
As the House will know, virtually every province has a criminal injuries compensation plan to cover its residents if they are injured as a result of a criminal act within the province. Virtually all provincial schemes not only cover Canadians who are injured within the province but also non-residents of Canada who suffer from criminal injuries within the province.
This bill is here because of two courageous people, Belinda and Mark Hillier, both of Victoria. Mark and Belinda in 1988 set off to Jamaica for what was to be their dream holiday. It was their first vacation overseas. They were looking forward to it. They went with friends.
While they were there they were the victims of a brutal crime. Two men got into their hotel room despite the security of the hotel in which they were staying. While in
the room the two men robbed them, beat them and repeatedly raped Belinda Hillier.
The next morning, with no money left, they were given only a modicum of assistance to get out of the country and left with their holiday, their vacation and their lives in ruins.
Four years later they are still trying to recover from the trauma of this crime. I had read of their plight in the local newspaper, the Times Colonist. I called them and we had a chat. The story emerged not only of the crime itself but of the failure of our society to respond to their plight.
As I heard their story, I began recalling others of a similar kind. When we did some research into it, we discovered a gap in the protection applying to Canadians. While there are criminal injury programs at the provincial level covering the victims of crime, there is no such plan in place for Canadians who are working or travelling abroad.
I have introduced this bill into the House for the first reading and it now comes before the House for second reading. If my colleagues will agree before this hour is over, the bill can then go to legislative committee for detailed consideration. I ask the House to give it that approval.
As hon. members will know, if enough members keep going past 12 p.m. Ottawa time, the bill drops to the bottom of the Order Paper. I would ask members to consider the possibility and agree with me that it should be moved to legislative committee. I believe, from my consultations with members on all sides of the House, that this bill is a non-partisan idea. It is one which has appeal to members on all sides of the House. It is an important concept because there is a gap in our legislation and it should be dealt with.
Let me offer three fundamental reasons why we should have a criminal injuries compensation program that covers Canadians abroad. First of all, we already provide at least nominal assistance to Canadians who are in trouble overseas through our diplomatic service. That is one of the important functions of the diplomatic service abroad. We provide innumerable services to

March 9, 1992
Private Members' Business
Canadians when they are overseas. This would be an extension of that principle.
Second, many countries that Canadians visit or work in have no criminal injuries program which would cover visitors from Canada. When crimes occur against Canadians overseas, that protection is simply not available to them. In some jurisdictions it is but in others it is not. It is a gap which should be filled.
Third, it is interesting that most of the provincial programs do cover foreign visitors coming to Canada. That principle has been accepted at the provincial level. The only way this gap can be filled properly is for the federal Parliament to exercise its jurisdiction and establish such a program or at least the framework of such a program that would apply overseas.
This bill establishes the framework in this way. It would authorize the government to enter into agreements with provincial agencies to administer the program. The bill does not propose establishing a new comprehensive bureaucracy at the federal level. The bill proposes that the responsibility of administering each particular case would be delegated to each provincial or territorial agency so that if someone were injured overseas and had a claim they would apply to their local provincial board or agency that administers the criminal injuries program in that province. In some cases it is workers' compensation boards; in other cases there is a separate criminal injuries compensation plan, a board that would administer the local plan, for example.
It would then be up to that board to adjudicate the claim based on the federal regulations and to pay the claim on a basis financed out of the federal treasury. The federal government would be responsible for the payments of federal claims to be decided under federal regulation by an agency negotiated by the federal government. It seems to me that it is a simple administrative system which builds on the system that already exists in Canada.
The federal government, under regulation, would have the authority to determine who would be entitled under the general rubric that any Canadian citizen or permanent resident in Canada-ordinarily residing here-would be entitled in general terms. The more
narrow definition of what type of crime would be covered and the circumstances under which a valid claim would be accepted would be established by regulation.
The provincial programs are more or less consistent as to the kinds of crimes that are covered. It would be a relatively simple matter to settle that for a federal program.
It is possible for all provinces to provide an upper limit on the amount covered. Generally speaking, the limits are relatively modest. It is important to appreciate the real role of the criminal injuries compensation program. It is in part to cover specific losses, although anyone who is travelling abroad with valuables presumably ought to be responsible for their own insurance.
There are items which cannot be easily covered by insurance, most particularly the trauma suffered by a crime overseas or anywhere. This is what criminal injuries compensation plans are primarily aimed at. In the case of the Hilliers, they are already suffering and continue to suffer from the trauma they received in that terrible tragedy of May 1988. Because they are of modest means they cannot really afford the continuing counselling that is necessary.
We have had another example in which recently a British Columbia resident was murdered in Mexico. The costs of bringing the body back home are beyond the family's means. That kind of cost could be covered under a criminal injuries compensation program. There will be other examples of a similar kind that could only be met, and at the provincial level are only met, by these criminal injuries compensation programs.
The underlying principle is really that of social insurance; the concept that we are a Canadian family and that we have some responsibility as Canadians for each other. The incident of crimes causing injury is relatively minor out of the millions of Canadians who visit overseas or for the millions of Canadians who are in Canada. When it happens to a particular family or to particular Canadian individuals, it can be the most dramatic, traumatic event in his or her life. Surely we as a Canadian family can organize ourselves to provide a minimum safety net, a minimum social insurance that not only can provide real assistance in dollars, but can say to those Canadians that
March 9, 1992

we as a Canadian family care about what happened to them.
My observation of the Hilliers is that this is really what is missing. They feel rejected by their own country because it has failed to respond in any way to what has happened to them. They have been turned away at every door they have come to for assistance. They agreed to make their case public because they wanted to tell a story in the hope that their pain could lead to some diminution of the pain of others who may suffer the same thing in the future.
I am really speaking for them when I ask the House not only to agree to this bill but to give it an opportunity to be discussed in detail as to the mechanics in committee. It will not cost Canada anything to take a look at this plan and to give it an opportunity to be considered in detail, to give the Hilliers and others an opportunity to come to the committee and offer their testimony and their witnesses. It would be a healing act for them and for others who have suffered without this kind of protection to be given an opportunity to do that.
I ask the House to endorse the bill. I appreciate very much the work that others have done to support this bill. At one point I got the great assistance of Professor John McLaren and students at the University of Victoria in providing a lot of the background material. I have a file full of material on the concept that has led to this bill.
I think it is a good bill. I appreciate the support that colleagues have already offered to me in private conversations and I look forward to their support in this debate.


Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Victoria on his presentation and the thought that has gone into the development of what I believe to be a very important and significant bill. I can sympathize with the Hilliers. I have a number of patients of my own who were victims of a hit and run accident in Spain and suffered medical injuries as a result of that very tragic accident.
However, what we are dealing with today is a question of jurisdiction as to who is to be responsible for the development of the law, where it is going to originate, and who is going to be responsible ultimately for the
Private Members' Business
payment of this whole remuneration for injuries received while out of the country.
This proposed Bill C-310 which deals with the compensation for Canadian victims of crime while travelling or posted abroad cannot really be enacted without prior consultation with the provinces. Health care traditionally is a responsibility of the provinces. Since none of the provinces have requested this type of a bill and no one has come forward until this time with this concept, it brings up this whole question of jurisdiction.
Because Canadian citizens are provincial and territorial residents, these governments must be consulted with regard to such an important issue. Not to engage in meaningful consultations with our provincial colleagues to seek their support would be considered unacceptable and an infringement of provincial jurisdiction. It should be noted that provincial governments have already enacted legislation which the member for Victoria discussed, making possible the granting of financial compensation to victims of criminal acts within their own provinces.
Provincial laws cannot be applied outside their boundaries. A province that wishes to provide compensation to its citizens who have been victims of criminal acts abroad would have to request that the federal government enact legislation along the lines of Bill C-310 to give extraterritorial effect to their laws. This is why it is so essential that the legislation be considered and brought forward together with the provinces rather than in the present nature of a private member's bill.
The intention behind this bill, as I think we all agree, is commendable. The story of the Hilliers certainly develops a sympathy and an understanding, but the request should be coming from the provinces rather than the federal government. It is my understanding that competent federal authorities have not been approached by their provincial counterparts. Furthermore, adoption of Bill C-310 without provincial consent would be inappropriate at this time.
Hon. members will be aware that the federal government through the Departments of External Affairs and International Trade provides assistance to Canadian citizens travelling and living abroad. This is being done by Canadian representatives at more than 120 different missions around the globe. The presenter of the bill

Private Members' Business
mentioned the care and the understanding given by our consulates abroad to Canadian citizens in trouble.
There is a wide range of consular services being provided to the Canadian public. These services vary from a simple request for information about travel abroad to assistance in major crisis situations such as the recent Persian Gulf war and the Middle East crisis. However, consular services entail general assistance to Canadians in need, intervention with local authorities where appropriate, help in obtaining legal counsel when required, and checking on the welfare of Canadian citizens in prison. When a Canadian citizen experiences difficulty abroad when his or her health is affected, consular representatives will do the maximum possible to ensure that proper medical attention and care is provided locally. Families or friends are informed through the Department of External Affairs in Ottawa.
This settlement of medical and hospital bills is the responsibility of the individual and claimable through provincial health plans. As part of the federal government's consular awareness programs we strongly urge all Canadian travellers to obtain appropriate personal and health insurance to cover costs which go beyond provincial plans. As a matter of fact we are aware that most Canadian travellers do take this added precaution when travelling abroad.
It is therefore evident that the Canadian government does not stand idly when it comes to the protection of its own citizens abroad. We can clearly state that compared to other countries Canada is quite generous in this regard.
The issue which Bill C-310 addresses deals largely with the provision of assistance and protection to Canadian travellers abroad. The issue addressed by Bill C-310 in my view is one which does not fall primarily within federal jurisdiction. Therefore I would have to suggest that this bill should not proceed until there has been more extensive consultation.
I think the general idea behind the bill is excellent. I feel we should provide support to Canadians who have been injured, to the victims of crime abroad, but I do feel that more work needs to be done and in consultation
with the provinces to come up with a proposal. I have very mixed feelings about turning this bill down because I feel that there is merit to it.
It is the question that this is more appropriately done through other channels. I would encourage the government to continue to work with the provinces to bring forth a program that will cover the victims of crime such as have been mentioned and we are all familiar with.


Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise in the House this morning to make some comments with respect to the legislation before us, an act respecting compensation for Canadian victims of crime travelling or posted abroad.
The explanatory note in the legislation states:
The purpose of this bill is to extend to Canadians and to permanent residents of Canada travelling or posted abroad the same rights to compensation as victims of crime that they would enjoy had they remained in Canada.
Let me compliment my colleague from Victoria who had the foresight and the industriousness to put together a private member's bill that reflects the feelings of the people he represents in the community of Victoria. With that in mind, it is obvious that the purpose of this legislation is to compensate on a parallel system those rights of victims that we experience in Canada.
I think it is best before we talk about compensation for victims outside Canada that we consider the procedures we have presently in place to compensate victims within the provinces of Canada.
My friend, the member for Delta, who just spoke previous to me, was quite right when he stated that compensation to victims is within the realm of provincial jurisdiction. First we should perhaps look at the procedure that happens in the province of Ontario with which I am most familiar. I am sure other provinces have similar procedures. An independent board is struck by the government of the province called the Criminal Compensation Board. Its purpose is to travel throughout the province to assess those victims who have been injured and have experienced pain and suffering as a result of crimes committed against either their person or against their property.
March 9, 1992

The panel meets in all jurisdictions provincially. After hearing all of the evidence and proof as to the pain and suffering experienced by the victim it then adjudicates on the evidence heard and awards some form of compensation to that victim. It may also choose not to award any compensation.
Unfortunately, our justice system can only compensate by way of dollars. We can never re-assess or go back in time and say that pain and suffering should be compensated in some other way. The only barometer and area of compensation we have is by way of monetary retribution.
As a result of the hearings that are held throughout the province of Ontario and other provinces in the country, the compensation is awarded as to the degree of pain and suffering of the victim.
I compliment the member for Victoria who has brought forward this bill to assist those people travelling outside of Canada. I must say at the outset should this bill be transferred to committee at the end of the day, that it would be our recommendation that the primary purpose of the criminal compensation board, although it is doing the best it can with the funds available, still does not meet the needs of the victims in our country.
The compensation awards are rather small when compared to awards given in civil litigation matters. The awards in no way compensate victims for the pain and suffering experienced in Canada as a result of abuse received from fellow citizens. This is a shortcoming within our system where the rights of the victim usually seem to take second place.
In my previous career as an assistant crown attorney in Thunder Bay, I was involved in the volumes of work that go into the actual mode of what really happens at a trial. The amount of work the crown attorney has to do in preparation often limits the amount of time that the assistant crown attorney has to spend with the actual victim of the crime.
The primary function is to assemble the facts, bring them to the proper jurisdiction, bring them to the court and get the facts into evidence as succinctly and as quickly as possible in order for the decision-maker to adjudicate on the facts that are presented. This often leaves the victim with the feeling that his day in court has not been properly exercised. It often leaves the victim with the feeling that the pain and suffering and the rights in the criminal procedure system have not properly addressed the victim's main concern.
Private Members' Business
I am not criticizing the system. The crown attorneys in this country do an exceptionally good job with respect to the time they have to prepare cases. Unfortunately, it leaves very little time to spend with actual victims of the crime.
In principle, we support what our colleague is attempting to do through this legislation. If it does get to the stage of committee hearings, I would also like to recommend a very advantageous program in Canada in particular, in Ontario.
I have had several occasions to participate in the program called the Victim-Offender Restitution Program. It is a procedure that began some years ago when the victims of crime did not feel that they were adequately compensated either by the degree of sentencing of the offender or that the compensation awarded was not adequate. Procedurally, the Victim-Offender Restitution Program would be undertaken by some voluntary organization within the communities in this country. The main purpose was to bring the victim of the crime into a controlled meeting setting with the offender of the crime in order to arrive at some satisfactory mutual agreement between the two parties. Joint submissions would then be made to the adjudicator of the court.
This has been working in some instances and it has been followed through in some of the areas in Canada, particularly in the areas of Thunder Bay and Windsor where it has worked very well.
It brings the victim of the crime, who has suffered the pain, suffering and the damage in a controlled setting with the offender. In this area they have been able to form some degree of a restitution process that seems to satisfy the victim more so than the sometimes cold, very impersonal court judicial process that they would normally go through.
I would like to reiterate one of the cases that I was involved in. I would suggest to the member if this does go to committee that perhaps we should give great thought to this Victim-Offender Restitution Program.
In this particular instance it was a matter that involved the loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars and injured and caused harm to many people through a series of transactions. After many hours of consultation and developing a formula for how to assess these damages, it was agreed between the victims-at that time there were well over 100 victims-and the offender, the person who had been properly tried and found guilty, and the leaders of the program that the compensation these victims

March 9, 1992
Private Members' Business
would receive would be in the way of the fine that was levied on the guilty party.
I go from memory but it seems to me that the fine in that area was somewhere around $100,000 or $150,000 of which $10,000 was a penalty paid. We established a system where $140,000 was distributed between all of the victims that suffered from that penalty and the crime.
What I am saying is that it worked in that particular proposal. The victims were very happy with the compensation.
I would like to recommend to my friend from Victoria that should this very fine legislation that he has presented today to compensate victims in his riding of Victoria go to committee, I would like to attend the committee hearings. I would like to bring and to augment his thoughts with the Victim-Offender Restitution Program.


Mr. Geoff Wilson (Swift Current-Maple Creek-As-siniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to make a brief contribution to this private members' hour and specifically in regard to Bill C-310 which has been proposed by our colleague from Victoria and which deals with the victims of criminal aggression abroad.
The objective of Bill C-310 is one which I am sure members on all sides of the House support, the intent being to reduce the burden which has to be borne by Canadians who find themselves victims of criminal abuse or aggression outside the borders of the country. It is certainly not an unreasonable thought but, at the same time, it does obviously deal with areas of provincial jurisdiction.
The Canadian provinces have enacted legislation which makes possible a granting of financial compensation to the victims of criminal acts within the provinces. The provincial laws of course cannot have any extraterritorial application.
Under this Bill C-310 as proposed, the province that wishes to provide compensation to its citizens who have been the victims of criminal acts abroad could ask the federal government to enact legislation that would give extraterritorial effect to provincial criminal compensation legislation.
Bill C-310 is plausible in a judicial way but obviously, it does lack some practicality constitutionally. The adoption of such legislation by the federal government should be undertaken only after extensive consultations with all of the provinces to determine if there is, in fact, provincial support for the proposed legislation.
Adoption of Bill C-310 without provincial consent could be very difficult and indeed very delicate in the context of the current constitutional debate. Some provinces may not accept the adoption by the federal government of legislation which affects areas of provincial jurisdiction.
It is not unreasonable to point out some specific areas of concern which have to be noted in regard to this bill.
First, the bill would provide for extraterritorial application of Canadian legal powers. This is an area of sensitivity for all governments because it is seen as a potential infringement on a country's sovereignty. We would have to take extreme care to ensure that all efforts have been made to avoid any possible friction between Canada and other foreign governments.
Again, it should be stressed that a government cannot extend its legal authority outside its boundaries unless prior agreement is sought from the other state or states involved. It should be noted in this regard that Canada has regularly and vigorously opposed the extraterritorial application of foreign laws on Canadian soil and I am sure would view any such attempts with great concern.
Bill C-310 as drafted would require major legal revisions after consultation with the provinces. For example, the bill as drafted generates some confusion with regard to a certain category of people, that is those Canadian citizens who live abroad but are not residents of any province. There are citizens of this country, Canadians on assignment for long periods of time outside Canada, who are employed neither in the private nor public sectors.
Furthermore, clause 3(a) of this proposed bill would have to be reviewed to introduce more specificity in relation to the Criminal Code. Moreover, the use of the double criminality concept would have to be built in. For example, a criminal act under the Canadian Criminal
March 9, 1992

Code is not necessarily a criminal act in a foreign jurisdiction and vice versa.
The proposed bill is one which falls under the general context of providing assistance to Canadian citizens who unfortunately experience difficulty abroad. The intent, as has been mentioned by others in this House and by myself earlier, is a good one but I believe that the bill should not proceed until there is a demonstrated need for such legislation and all appropriate consultations with the provinces have taken place.
I have not had the opportunity to study this bill in detail and the background to it, but I am not entirely sure that all of the provinces of Canada at this point in time have their own legislation in place. I know that a number of them do. I am not sure whether all of the provinces have legislation which would compensate for the victims of crime taking place within the territorial boundaries of the particular province.
Indeed, I am sure that there is a lack of consistency between the provinces within Canada. Various jurisdictions have legislation but again I am guessing because I have not had the opportunity to look at this in detail, that there is inconsistency from province to province in terms of the criteria, compensation, and so on.
Therefore, I think it is a bit premature to be thinking in terms of the federal government trying to come forward unless and until there is unanimity within the provinces of Canada, that each of the provinces has legislation and indeed that there is consistency from province to province across the nation.
Clearly, that is not the case at the present time. Until it is, it seems to me that it would be difficult and I would suggest from a constitutional point of view, rather imprudent for the federal government to attempt to involve itself with Bill C-310 at this point in time.


Mr. Phillip Edmonston (Chambly):: Mr. Speaker, I think we probably have a very good understanding of where we are right now and what this bill means and what changes this bill brings forward.
We are not passing the bill today. We are moving it through second reading so that we can study it in
Private Members' Business
committee. That is it. What is wrong with the principle of this bill? Both Conservative members of this House who spoke had almost similar reasoning for not passing this legislation or not sending it to committee at this time.
Why would we object to the principle of indemnifying or compensating Canadians who are victims of crime when they are working or travelling in other countries? Why? That is what we are dealing with right here. Is the principle so offensive to your voters and your ridings?
Each and every one of you know of people who have had these problems. They have been injured, maimed, raped, attacked and have brought their problems to you and asked for compensation. It is not new. We have seen this as members of Parliament. I am sure in the past you have had to say to these people as my colleague from Victoria who proposed Bill C-310 said: "I would like to help you, but there is a gap". There is a gap between what a province would do if the injury was because of a criminal act in the province and what the federal government would do if the injury was because of a criminal act in another country. That is the gap.
What we have to concern ourselves with is the principle of this bill. Can we go back to our voters, the people who elected us and who wish us to initiate action to respond to their needs? Can we really tell them that on a question of principle, I voted against this compensation bill.
The bill is not raising taxes. It is not creating a heavy mechanism that is going to cost a great deal of money, not at all. One of the nice things about it is that it is piggy-backing on provincial programs which have been in effect for years. Also I understand that the territories have similar legislation.
We are dealing here with principle. It is most important that when we talk about principle that we look at some of the comments that were made on the Conservative side about what is good about Bill C-310.
Let us look at what the government side said is good about this bill. Those members say it is judicially plausible. That means we do not have any problem as far as the courts are concerned. Legally we can do it. Great. On all sides, members agree with the intent of this bill. Mem-

March 9, 1992
Private Members' Business
bers agree also with the principle-we come back to the key word again-of the bill. Everyone agrees with it.
Everyone agrees, and I agree as well, that there must be consultation with the provinces. I am one who believes in consultation with the provinces. My gosh, I am a refugee from the Dobbie-Beaudoin committee. Having gone through that war, I can tell you the one thing our committee had pretty well burned into our collective skull was that we have to consult with the provinces in order to invoke any kind of constitutional change.
We are not talking about rewriting the Constitution here, we are simply talking about compensating Canadians who fall through the cracks, where there is no federal jurisdiction, Canadians who are travelling or working in other countries and who happen to be injured or killed as a result of a criminal act.
Government members say that these Canadians, rather than having this bill passed to help them and compensate them, could normally get help from the Canadian embassies abroad. This is not always the case. In the case my colleague from Victoria mentioned, the woman had been brutally raped and her family had their money and valuables stolen in Jamaica and they received no help whatsoever from the Canadian High Commissioner.
This bill will require, will mandate, will demand that these people get help. Do not tell me that private insurance will help these people who fall through the cracks. Private insurance will not cover many of these costs. Private insurance will not give the help when it is needed. If we are talking about private insurance to protect Canadians when these types of problems occur, why did that argument not work at the provincial and territorial level? Why did the provinces and territories not say: "We are not going to pass any victims' indemnity programs or laws. Go to the private insurance network. You are in better hands with All State." Give me a break. Why do we not just turn the entire social contract that Canadians have with our government to provide certain help for us all over to the insurance companies?


An hon. member:: Hear, hear.


Philip Edmonston: A government member says hear, hear. This is incredible. We are here because our voters
want action. That is another thing I learned from the Beaudoin-Dobbie constitution committee. People are tired of us pussy-footing around, playing off one jurisdiction against another, washing our hands of the thing and saying,

it's not our problem, it's not our responsibility. The hon. member opposite just said "really", but he doesn't want us to spend money. The public is sick and tired of seeing us spend money.
But this bill isn't about spending money, because we already have provincial and territorial programs for compensating victims of criminal acts. We are not proposing a new bureaucracy, because the bureaucracy already exists. Victims can simply file an application with the provincial agency, which will then make arrangements with the federal government. That's all.

In conclusion, I wish to repeat that I support my colleague from Victoria and his private member's bill, C-310. It does something important which is not done at the provincial and territorial level regarding people who are victims of criminal acts while travelling in foreign countries or working there. I will be darned if I will accept the argument from the Conservative side of the House that we have to consult the provinces on the principle, that we have to go to insurance companies on a principle or that we have to pussy foot around on a principle.


Mr. Dennis Mills (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue on the same theme as the member for Chambly. I did not intend to participate in this debate. I listened to the member for Chambly carefully and I tend to share his view.
We are talking about moving a piece of legislation into committee for further refinement on the basic mechanisms that are involved. I just do not understand how the government can object.
It seems to me if there was one thing I discovered when I was going through the Dobbie-Beaudoin committee report last week-of course, I do not agree with most of it-it was that one of the few things that the national government is left with after this report is the fact that we are the leaders in this nation on international affairs.
March 9, 1992

This bill, put in practical terms, is something that the government is missing the boat on. I want to give a very specific example that happened in my riding just two years ago.
A young woman was working in the southern United States. She was pregnant and was a victim of crime. This led to a premature birth. The hospital would not release her unless the bill was paid. The bill was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $50,000 to $60,000. This is a very specific example.
It is a mystery to me why the government is turning its back on putting a bill like this forward for further study. I want to support the proposer of this bill and the member for Chambly. I think they are on the right track. The government is plainly not looking at this clearly. I would defer now to the proposal.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: A point of order, the hon. member for Victoria.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, while I appreciate the airing that the House has given to this bill and the fact that it has had an opportunity to be discussed in this House, I would also like to give the House an opportunity to give unanimous consent to the motion to approve it on second reading and refer it to the legislative committee.


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


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, there being no further members wishing to speak. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal
Government Orders
Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee F.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak to this important piece of legislation which, as usual, has been somewhat misrepresented by members of the opposition,
I am sorry to say.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may recall that the purpose of this bill is to provide for federal-provincial fiscal arrangements. These fiscal arrangements are important because they ensure that where certain specific services are concerned, all Canadians across the country have access to those services. And when we are talking about federal transfers to the provinces, we must remember there are three different programs under which money is transferred from the federal government to the provinces: first of all, the so-called transfer payments; second, equalization payments; and third, another program that also applies to certain provinces, but not to all.
Federal transfer payments to the provinces are important because they ensure a minimum standard of goods and services and quality of life for all Canadians, wherever they happen to be in this country. Since 1984 when this government was elected, transfer payments to the provinces have increased every year. Unfortunately, opposition members will say they did not, but that is false, and it is false, Mr. Speaker, because when we look at the figures for each year, the amounts transferred to the provinces have indeed increased.
Although these amounts have gone up substantially, more is of course always better. But I think that what we need, both at the federal level and the provincial level, is a balanced budget. We know that the federal government's debt is a big problem and therefore the federal government must meet its financial responsibilities and the provinces must play a part in reducing the national debt and in the collective effort we must all make to solve our national debt problem.
In that regard, I think that Bill C-60 is in keeping with the priorities that I mentioned. This bill deals, among other things, with post-secondary education and health care, two important issues in Canada. Given the importance of education in our country and given that unfortunately too many of our young people do not complete

Government Orders
high school and then do not obtain what they consider a decent job or one they would like to have, it is important to emphasize that point and ensure that young people throughout Canada, as well as people who need health care, have these services at the same cost throughout Canada.
I think that Bill C-60 respects these important basic criteria which give a preferred status to education and health throughout Canada, be it in Newfoundland, British Columbia or Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to point out that the minister responsible for this bill, the Hon. John McDermid, is in the House. I would be prepared to give him some of my time so that he too can express his point of view on this important bill. I know that he is prepared to talk about it.
So, Mr. Speaker, I will conclude with that and leave some time for my colleague, the minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is it my understanding that you are splitting your 40 minutes?


Mr. McDermid:: Mr. Speaker, I believe we need the permission of the House to do that. If I could just make a few concluding comments. The parliamentary secretary presented the case very well. There are just a couple of points that I would like to make, but it does need unanimous consent of the House and I would ask for that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I was just going to do that, thank you very much.
Is there unanimous consent to allow the Minister of State for Finance a few minutes to complete the statement?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, we have no objection on this side, but we would like to have some notice of that from now on so that we can get some previous notice from the ministers as to who is going to be splitting what time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is fine. I am sure that is agreeable. The hon. Minister of State for Finance can complete his statement.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues in the House for that kindness.
As the parliamentary secretary so ably pointed out this morning, this bill, Bill C-60, amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, the Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, and makes a number of minor changes within the acts that I have just mentioned to try and improve the simplicity of the tax system.
We are, of course, talking about some additional moneys that have been given to provinces in the equalization program, which is the cornerstone of Canadian fiscal federalism. This renewal is a result of about 20 months of consultation with the provinces. The provinces were extremely pleased with the results of the consultation as was expressed at the finance ministers' meeting that was held in Quebec City not too long ago. This bill will also allow the federal and provincial governments to mutually administer and enforce each other's taxes. That will allow us to simplify the tax system somewhat. If we have heard anything from business, from the consumer and so on, it is to please simplify the tax system. So this will simplify the payment of taxes for the taxpayers and for governments.
I think it is very important at this particular time where provincial governments are working in co-operation with the federal government in some instances, and I think others will follow suit, in collecting provincial sales taxes at the border.
These are not new taxes. I want to make that very clear. The provinces are owed these taxes as people purchase products on the other side of the border and bring them back into Canada. Over and above the exemption they must pay their federal sales tax, they must pay their provincial sales tax.
To date, the federal government has not been collecting the provincial sales taxes. We have now started with the province of Quebec because it has harmonized its system or will be harmonizing its system with the goods and services tax. Other provinces are very close to making a decision. Other provinces are looking into it in some detail now as to harmonizing their tax system with the federal goods and services tax system, especially in the goods area.
March 9, 1992

This will allow us to make agreements with the provinces to in fact collect those taxes. I think that is a very, very important part of the bill.
The bill provides for a generous renewal of the equalization program while maintaining our fiscal responsibility, and in addition by facilitating the mutual administration of taxes between federal and provincial governments. We are just improving our country's tax system as a whole. I think that is very important.
I just want to re-emphasize if I might one of the points that was raised by the parliamentary secretary. We keep hearing about cuts to provinces and that we have cut back on moneys for transfers to provinces and so on. This morning I went through in some detail the transfers to provinces over the period since 1984-85, since the Progressive Conservatives formed the government in Canada. As I go through province by province, the types of increases to the provinces that have gone on over that period of time, I think it is very important that the public understand exactly what those increases are. I am going to take just a moment to go province by province to point out the importance of fiscal transfers to the provinces and how they have grown and continue to grow over this period of fiscal restraint we are in.
For example, major transfers to Newfoundland have grown at an average annual rate of 5.5 per cent since 1984-85 and this year are likely to exceed $1.4 billion, accounting for about 44 per cent of Newfoundland's revenue.
Major transfers to Prince Edward Island, an annual rate of 5.3 per cent increase per year, likely to exceed $300 million this year. That is over 40 per cent of P.E.I.'s revenues.
Major transfers to Nova Scotia have grown at an annual average rate of 5.6 per cent since 1984-85, likely to exceed $1.8 billion this year. This accounts for 43 per cent of Nova Scotia's revenues.
Major transfers to New Brunswick have grown at an average annual rate of 5.7 per cent since 1984-85, expected to total almost $1.6 billion this year, accounts for about 39 per cent of New Brunswick's revenues.
Government Orders
Transfers to Quebec have grown at an average annual rate of 3.8 per cent since 1984-85, likely to total about $11 billion this year, accounts for about 31 per cent of Quebec's revenues.
To Ontario, the major transfers have grown at an average annual rate of 6.2 per cent since 1984-85, expected to exceed $9.9 billion this year and accounts for just over 20 per cent of Ontario's revenues.
Manitoba, we have seen an annual growth rate of 6.6 per cent since 1984-85, expected to exceed $1.9 billion this year. That accounts for close to 40 per cent of Manitoba's revenues.
To Saskatchewan, it has grown at an average annual rate of 8.3 per cent since 1984-85, the highest of any province, expected this year to exceed $1.3 billion and accounts for about 27 per cent of Saskatchewan's revenues.
For Alberta-and I know that you are interested in this, Mr. Speaker-the transfers have grown at an average annual rate of 5.2 per cent since 1984-85, expected to exceed $2.5 billion this year and accounts for about 20 per cent of the revenues for Alberta.
For British Columbia they have grown at an average rate of 4.8 per cent. They expect to total almost $3.3 billion this year. This accounts for more than 20 per cent of British Columbia's revenues.
For the Northwest Territories it has grown at 7.6 per cent, likely to exceed $880 million and, of course, accounts for about 80 per cent of the Territories' revenues.
For Yukon it has grown at 8.6 per cent since 1984-85, likely to exceed $250 million this year and accounts for about two thirds of Yukon's revenues.
Statistics can be extremely boring and no doubt these have proved to be boring. The point I want to make is this. Time after time we hear members of the opposition and provincial premiers moaning and groaning that they are not getting the share of revenue from the federal government that they should get, or that we are destroying medicare-and this is what the opposition says-or we are destroying post-secondary education. Yet we must look at the transfers to the provinces that have gone on year over year over the last period of time and continue to go on. Of course, this year there has been a reassessment. There will be an increase of some $400 million in one year that is going to the provinces, $200 million in retroactive and $200 million per year from there on extra, over and above, under the negotiations that have gone on. It is very plain to see that although the increases have slowed down-and I am not arguing that at all, the increases that the provinces might have


March 9, 1992
Government Orders
expected or wanted, and of course they will take any largesse from the federal government that we can provide them-


An hon. member:: No.


John Horton McDermid: Certainly they will. They relatively appreciate it but they will take it, that is for sure. I am talking about the extra equalization program that we came in with, that we negotiated with them and that they are very happy about, especially the province of Quebec.
The Minister of Finance from Quebec, the Hon. Gerard Levesque, was extremely pleased with the new negotiations and the decision that came down recently. My hon. friend from Montreal should not look quite so surprised because I was sitting beside Mr. Levesque when he sang the praises of the Minister of Finance for the Government of Canada at that particular time.
In any event, these measures are very important. They are important for the provinces. It is a two-year extension of the agreement. We will be continuing in the next two years negotiating the equalization program which I think will be very, very important.
I understand that there have been consultations and there is unanimous consent to refer this bill to the Standing Committee on Finance. Therefore, I move:
That pursuant to Standing Order 73(3), Bill C-60, an act to amend
the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Federal
Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, be referred
to the Standing Committee on Finance.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Some hon. members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Will those members who object to the motion, please rise in their places.


Mrs. Marleau:: On a point of order. You did not recognize me on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize the hon. member on a point of order, but this is the standard procedure when we have a minister rising in his place to refer the bill to a different committee. I will recognize the hon. member on a point of order.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. minister mentioned something about consultation. I am the critic in the House on this bill. No one has spoken to me about referring and changing the venue of the discussion for this bill. Perhaps if we did have some discussions I might be agreeable, but at this point I have not been consulted and I am not aware of anyone in my party having been consulted.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, it is my understanding that the agreement was between the House leaders. That was the information that was provided to me. I did not consult with my colleagues in the opposition as I was informed that consultations had in fact taken place. If they have not taken place, I will make sure they do take place, but I still would like to put that motion before the floor.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. minister would allow me a few minutes to consult with the members of my party before proceeding with his motion. I would beg his indulgence, please.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there agreement?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All right, there is agreement.
I will wait and see what instructions the Chair receives within the next few minutes. I will cany on with the debate.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to debate Bill C-60, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act.
I sat here and listened with a great deal of patience to the glorious renderings of the illustrious minister on the government side who was very busy telling us and Canadians how well they have behaved toward the provinces in terms of transfers and the huge increases that have come forward.
I sometimes wonder what kind of land they live in because wherever I go I hear of cutbacks. I hear from students how tuition fees have increased. I hear of massive closures in the health sector. I am not at all convinced that Canadians are prepared to acknowledge that the statements made by the minister are as optimistic as perhaps he would like us to believe.
March 9, 1992

Perhaps one of the biggest problems is always that it is so very easy to massage figures and to make them appear to be much better than they actually are. At this point, I have not had a great deal of opportunity to spend much time studying it. I know as a member of the finance committee I will get that opportunity. Perhaps then my remarks will be more definite as to what is good and what is bad with this bill.
When it comes to simply extending the equalization and transfer payments for another two years, I obviously have no opposition to that. I think that the whole basis for equalization and transfer payments has helped make us Canadian.
Any Canadian who lived through the Great Depression can still picture the breadlines and the transients riding the rails across the country. I have been told many stories by my parents and my grandparents of the years of the Depression and the horrors to which Canadians were subjected.
Most of our parents and others who lived through this Great Depression thought that they would never see these sights again. They thought that never again would they see the breadlines or the homeless. I believe that this is really what was at the source of the beginnings of our great social safety network. I believe that that is where the idea of equalization came from, the idea of helping those provinces with less to achieve and maintain a certain minimum of standard.
That is where all of these government initiatives really began. By and large, they were veiy successful in making sure, at least up until the last few years, that never again would we see these breadlines and these homeless people.
Here we are in the 1990s faced with exactly what we thought we would never see again. In the early 1980s when we went through that terrible recession, it was thought that it was a temporary measure to help these people during a particularly bad time. Here we are. We have gone through a number of very prosperous years. Not only have we not seen the decline of these homeless, these breadlines or these soup kitchens, but we have seen a proliferation of them. The only reason is that this
Government Orders
social network that we created as a caring country has broken down. Therefore, the moneys that are needed are really not there.
We have forgotten what we as a government, as a governing party, as elected representatives were elected to do, and that is to look after the people of our country.
We have seen a reduction in government expenditures and non-action on others, all in the light of fighting the deficit. The government is saying it needs additional revenues to fight the deficit, so it has slashed all of these programs.
Has the deficit decreased? No. This government has presided over the doubling of the debt with its bottom line mentality of forgetting about people. Its economic policies have been absolutely disastrous. Rather than basing its policies on full unemployment, equality and decency for all it has had this bottom line mentality, this idea that fighting the deficit at all costs would save us. It has not saved us at all. We are faced with a very terrible future, far worse than any of us had ever thought we would see again.
We talk about fiscal arrangements. Regional disparities have been a problem in our country throughout our history. Without substantial financial contributions from the federal government, they would be much, much worse.
It would be much more difficult for some of the poorer provinces to provide accessible and affordable health care and higher education to their residents.
The funding framework is embodied in the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Established Programs Financing Act of 1977. Originally federal support for health and higher education was to keep pace each year with over-all growth in the economy. Since 1986, support has been cut back as a result of a series of unilateral decisions by the federal government aimed at reducing the deficit. As a result, the cash portion of basic federal support has declined.
To go back to the dismantling of the system, you go back to the budget of 1986. Bill C-96 it was called. They always have a new number. It depends on when they are introduced, in what cycle. This is from the budget of

Government Orders
1986. The established programs financing escalator used to be tied to the Gross National Product, GNP, but in 1986 it was reduced to the Gross National Product less 2 per cent. You could say that it would still allow it to grow, but not at the full level of growth of the Gross National Product.
There was a new budget introduced in 1987 with a new bill, Bill C-44. This again renewed the fiscal arrangements of the established programs financing until March 31, 1992, again keeping these lower than growth types of increases. In 1989, under Bill C-33, beginning in 1991 the rate of growth of the established programs financing transfers would be cut by one percentage point. Now we are down to the Gross National Product less 3 per cent, again a decrease in the increase.
At that time the government expected to save hundreds of millions of dollars. In the budget of 1990, we saw Bill C-69. I am a lot more familiar with some of these because I was actively involved in the debate on these bills. The transfer payments to the provinces on post-secondary education and health care were frozen again at the Gross National Product less 3 percentage points. And it carried on. Bill C-69 did not deal with CAP. We have had an extension of CAP already this year. Under the Canada Assistance Plan bill which allocates moneys for welfare, Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia were limited to the amounts of increases. Despite the fact that they have huge rates of welfare, that the unemployment rates and their rates have increased far and above what many others have, it would still not be allowed to raise the money that would be transferred to deal with these programs. Always we see a constant cutback. Year after year after year we see it happening.
The impact of these cuts and these freezes results in total losses to the provinces in the billions of dollars range. We see that reflected very much in what is happening with our health care system. Although it is true that our health care system is costly, it is still the best value for our money. If we compare what we get for our dollar here in Canada and what the U.S. gets for the amount of money that it spends, then we are far and above better served by every dollar that we invest in our health care.
There is no doubt in my mind that changes need to be made to some of the programs. Perhaps we need to emphasize other areas of health care more than some of the ones that we do.
Cutting back on the transfers in these areas has not contributed to better management of our health care system. They have only contributed to the cutbacks and to the fear that we feel now across the nation as the middle income group, which is the largest group of Canadians, are frightened and afraid of what is going to happen to them in the future. Will there be a health care system for them, will they be able to get the drugs that they need at the prices they can afford to pay when they need them, when they get to be a certain age. There is this feeling that perhaps the federal government is letting go of its responsibilities in this matter.
Obviously when we saw that Quebec was prepared to introduce user fees, as we allow the federal government to transfer fewer and fewer dollars to the provinces in these areas, then we also transfer the authority that we as a national government have. It would mean that in some areas of the country we would perhaps have better health care than in others.
I was always under the impression that the idea behind many of our programs was that we would have equal types of programs, equal care for people across the country, not where one richer province perhaps had more money to invest in one area versus another. I think that is totally unfair. We must be very careful to preserve one of the best universal medical health care systems in the world.
In the 1984 election, Brian Mulroney on August 18, 1984 said that "universal social programs are a sacred trust, not to be tampered with". I believe when he spoke of universal social programs he especially meant medicare, which is a social program, which is universal. However, many people now would have us believe that if one has money one should be able to pay for one's health care.
At first glance perhaps it might sound like the answer. It would be the beginning of the end of what we have now. I do not believe that health care should be based on a person's wallet, it should be based on the state of that person's health. Therefore, if a person is very poor, but very ill and dying, then he or she should get priority
March 9, 1992

treatment. It should not matter whether he or she has money or not.
When we start going to a pay system of medicare, it means that the more money one has, the better treatment one gets. I do not believe that anyone in Canada, except for a very few people, have the kind of money that may be necessary in the case of a major health crisis.
I always think back to the years when I was a child. I was being raised, myself and my two brothers, by my mother. I remember how she did not use the health care system that we had because it was such a horrendous thing to be sick, the cost was something that she just could not afford. Perhaps she should have had medical care sooner, but this fear of the cost kept her from it. In the end she was admitted at emergency and it was a very harsh time in our lives, as children, and in her life as the sole supporting parent. I would like to believe that at no time should anyone be in a position like that again.
Our system has prevented this from happening. The transfer payments in terms of health care are especially important, because as we cut back on the amount of money we give to the provinces, we are losing control over this health care system, which is the best in the world and which most of us have benefited from.
If you wish to get some money back from the more wealthy Canadians, by all means do it. But do it through taxation, do not do it by tampering with this health care system. Obviously we do need to revamp some of the things that are done in the health care system. We need more rationalizing of some of the services we offer. We have to think of people first.
I am going to give you an example of something that has happened in Ontario in the health care sector which has come to my attention and which is a better utilization of some of the facilities. As you know, our Sudbury Memorial Hospital was one of the first hospitals to pioneer the heart by-pass surgery in the replacement and rebuilding of arteries.
For many years there was a problem because the lists of patients waiting for surgery became longer and longer. We heard of people out west who were waiting to have this surgery who died and others who were admitted right away in certain areas where the list was not as long.
Government Orders
A decision was made to put together a task force, maybe four or five years ago-and you can correct me on the number of years-that was adopted and that was to have a registry. Now anywhere in Ontario where there are facilities to do this coronary reconstructive surgery, the by-pass surgery, when you are in an emergency situation you need not wait. There is one central person that you call to and they will tell you which hospital has facilities available immediately or within the next few days. As a result, the backlog of emergency by-pass surgery has gone down to nothing. Now when a person needs the surgery the facilities are found and utilized. It has made for much better utilization of the operating rooms that are equipped to deal with these emergencies.
I would suggest that we should encourage this kind of a central registry for all kinds of surgery. For instance, at this time, at least in Ontario and perhaps in many other areas of this country, there is a problem with hip replacements. As you know, people who need hip replacements are in a great deal of pain and it may take, at times, six months, a year, a year and a half before they are called to have this hip replacement. I would strongly recommend that this kind of registry be set up so that again all of the facilities could be better utilized for these people who, although they may not be in danger of dying from this pain, are suffering a great deal. Perhaps we could shorten that time they have to wait and make their lives that much easier.
These are innovative ways of using what we have. We have to think in terms of people first. If we think only in terms of money saved, all we look at then is the bottom line. Perhaps one hospital will not do any hip replacements for six months. By the way it is a very costly procedure.
That is perhaps one of the reasons why more hospitals are not doing them. If one hospital is not being utilized to its fullest potential in that area and in another region of the country people are waiting months and months to receive this surgery, I do not believe that either the Canadian public or the system is being well served because the cost in terms of medication, pain control and health are dramatic. A person who is healed and well is far better able to serve the country and the community. It also costs a lot less in the short run if you heal them right away.

Government Orders
I am very, very adamant about reducing cutbacks generally and about more specific types of control as to where our moneys go. I would like to believe that Bill C-60 is not an outright cutback in program funding, but my experience with this government has taught me that everything is painted up. One of my colleagues once said "tarted up", made to look very glossy and great, but as soon as you look underneath, there is something hidden. There is something that we, as unsuspecting Canadians, do not know and there is some hidden motive and that is a motive of cutback, a motive of letting go of the responsibility for health care. One of the biggest mistakes we could make is to let go of that responsibility in health care.
Established Programs Financing also relates to education and we have heard the Prime Minister and everyone go on about competition, saying we can compete. We can only compete if we have the best educated people around. We have seen some dramatic cutbacks in the education system. How can we say we can compete when at the same time we have cut back and cut back on transfer payments to education? We have literally forced our deficit on to the provinces and said to the provinces they have a choice: they can either increase their taxes or cut back on their services. What we have seen in many instances is a mix of the two.
As a result, our post-secondary students are paying more in tuition fees. They are having a harder and harder time to get this first class education. Again, the idea behind being a Canadian is making sure that all of us have equal opportunities. It is making sure that those of us who come from poorer backgrounds and those of us who come from more affluent families have this same opportunity to access that education and to access those jobs.
The other day I had a call from a constituent of mine who was extremely disturbed because of the end of the family allowance that was announced in the budget. She was extremely disturbed because this was the amount of money she set aside every month and matched for her children's education. She was upset because this was going to be cut back, but she was also upset because she could see the increase in the cost of education. She could see that when her children, who are 7 and 9, got to be of
an age to go to university, it would cost far more perhaps than she would have been able to put aside.
She was upset with the fact that the family allowance would no longer be there for her to put aside for her children. She was also upset with this fear that it is not going to be an education that is open to everyone.
As best I could, I tried to allay her fears, but I feel that there are times when it is justifiable to feel this need to be reassured that our children, the next generation, will be given the tools with which they can compete in a way that will make sure they can guarantee themselves and their future children a very comfortable life. Do not forget that a lot of the moneys that would go to fight the deficit come from tax revenues which are only generated when people have good, high-paying jobs; when their income is there to pay the taxes. Everything is connected.
What we have seen lately is more of this letting go. We find ourselves in a constitutional crisis in which we look at this debate with Quebec and with the provinces and we feel this fear that there is no strong central force. There is no one willing to stand up and say: "Yes, I will guarantee that there will be a Canadian medical system beyond all of them. Not a Quebec medical system or a Manitoba medical system, or an Ontario medical system, but a system that is truly Canadian for all of us in which all of us have equal access". The same thing applies to education. We need a Canadian system which guarantees that all education will be open to all. Every one of us who is able to go to school should have the right to do so in a way that does not break us.
In this last budget, on the one hand the government took away that 3 per cent surtax on loans that it had instituted, but on the other hand it has now said that it would start charging interest from the day that a person graduates. If you go to school for any number of years and you borrow, you could find yourself on the day of graduation owing $25,000 to $30,000. What a horrendous debt to have to start off with, especially in these days when the job market expectations are not particularly good even if you are a graduate from a university or from post-secondary education. The wages are not that high. To start off your adult life with a debt of that magnitude is extremely serious.
March 9, 1992

I have spoken of this matter before in the House. There is an example in which there was a single mother who went back to school and used a student loan to finance her education. She got her education and a job and now finds herself holding down two jobs and still having a great deal of difficulty getting rid of this student loan debt. The interest has grown faster than she can pay it off. She is now facing sending her own children to university with her own debt still unpaid, and her children will now be forced to borrow in even larger amounts because tuition fees are going up.
I ask that we reconsider what we are doing with this bill. Are we going to help these people? I think it is very important that we consider who we are hurting when we do these things. We are hearing that there are going to be some tax base improvements and that there will be perhaps some increased benefits to the provinces-the minister said $200 million. It will go only to certain provinces because in this whole system it is all based on need and equalization only goes to the poorer provinces. Have we reconsidered all of the provinces? Some of the provinces that were known to be rich have suffered the most lately.
All of these things have to be reconsidered seriously, and not just in light of the upcoming federal election in which this government is intent on going around saying to everybody: "See what a great government we are because we have given you $10 million". Forget the billions it has cut back before. I have a terrible feeling that this is what this bill is going to allow the government to do.
I am happy if the government can give things, but I do not want it to just do it once. I want the government to do it and mean it and not to be dismantling something behind the scenes after telling everyone that it has now found the true path to self-righteousness and all of the rest of it. I somehow do not believe the government. I would really think that the rest of Canadians feel as I do. How can we believe this government?
The government has told us things before that really did not come out. How can we and why should we believe that this will help anyone anywhere?
One of the things that this bill proposes is a change to the base year for the ceiling provision. The attitude is that the government is going to change the base year-
Government Orders
nothing wrong with that. Normally you change the base year and things go their merry way. Currently the base year being used is 1987-88. This piece of legislation would make the base year 1992-93. How can we make the base year 1992-93 when we are not there yet? What about 1991-92? How do we use the 1992-93 base year for 1991-92?


John Horton McDermid: I will explain it to you.


Diane Marleau: I would really like to have you explain it to me. To me it is shenanigans. It is pure and simple.


John Horton McDermid: You better tell that to the provincial ministers because they negotiated it.


Diane Marleau: The minister is quite willing to give explanations now, but that is backtracking. I would like to believe that this was all done in good faith but I have this suspicious mind that there is more to it than meets the eye. Maybe not. Maybe for once, I am wrong. I hope I am wrong. I have not been wrong too many times before but maybe this once. If I am, I will honestly admit it and come out and congratulate you on a fabulous bill when it is all done.
This bill makes what are referred to as tax based improvements. There are about 30 tax base changes which are being made to update and improve the measurement of relative fiscal capacity of the provinces. Does that not sound great? It just sounds great, but what does it mean? That is exactly the case in point. What really does it mean?
According to the officials conducting the briefing I attended, this will result in a $200 million deal in additional benefits for the provinces for this year. Great, hallelujah. Two hundred million may sound like a large amount of money but perhaps the amounts should be $2 billion.
It is so easy to fool people when you are dealing with these large numbers. Believe me, $200 million is very little in the budgets of most provinces when they are dealing with health care and post-secondary education.
I realize it is in addition to what they get now, but they should probably get a lot more than this additional $200 million, which sounds like a large amount of money but is probably very little.

Government Orders
There are a number of other things in this bill. It says that it establishes a detailed framework for administration agreements dealing with all types of taxation. Oh, oh. This says an awful lot, but we are not quite sure. Does this mean there are going to be more tax points transferred to the provinces?' Is that what that means? I do not know. If it means that, then it means the dismantling of the power from the centre to the provinces, which is not something my party really believes in at this time, especially when it comes to health care and post-secondary education.


Philip Edmonston: Except for Quebec.


Diane Marleau: My colleague to the left here is saying except for Quebec. I disagree very strongly, but we will not get into that debate now.
There are designs to the tax system in this bill that would facilitate the collection and administration of taxes from both the government's and the taxpayers' perspectives. Is that to facilitate the collection of taxes at the border or is that to facilitate the harmonization of the GST and the provincial sales tax? It could well be, but we are not sure because it does not mention which taxes it would like to harmonize. We know the government wants to harmonize the GST.
Was this also negotiated with the provincial premiers? Has there somehow been a secret deal with some of these premiers that they would harmonize the GST. I wonder if the Premier of Ontario has agreed to the harmonization of the GST and the PST? The people of Ontario would really like to know whether that is really what this is about.


John Horton McDermid: The people of Ontario would like to see it so there is only one tax.


Diane Marleau: I have no idea whether the people of Ontario would like to see it. One of the things I do know is that the people of Ontario would like to know what kind of deal this government has cooked up behind closed doors on that.
Is that what this legislation is about? Are we going to see harmonization very, very quickly of our GST-PST system? That is one thing that leaves me to speculate.
The government is in a very big hurry to pass this bill. Perhaps it is necessary because it tells us that the end of the original agreement on the Established Programs Financing and on the transfer and equalization payments is in view.
We must give very serious consideration to the ramifications of this bill to make sure that we are protecting those areas which we, as Canadians, hold very near and dear.
There are very few areas now that we as Canadians can still feel very proud of. One of them is our health care system. We are still proud of it, despite some of the deficiencies that may or may not appear from time to time. It is still the best in the world.
I would hope that this legislation would not detract from it or deter from it. I would hope that all national standards be applied at all times and that a Canadian, whether he is bom in Newfoundland, British Columbia, northern Ontario or Quebec would have access to the same kind of medical care no matter what his income, no matter what his position in life. I think it is very important that we ensure this.
I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for being very generous and allowing me to speak for as long as I have. Before I sit down, I would like to say that I have received a note from the people in my party. Yes, we do agree to having this bill sent to the finance committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the hon. member for Chambly, I believe there is unanimous agreement for the motion of the Minister of State for Finance.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Debate will therefore resume on the motion for second reading of Bill C-60 and reference to the Standing Committee on Finance.


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, before commenting on the motion moved by the Minister of State (Finance and Privatization), I would like to outline very briefly what Bill C-60 proposes to do.
Bill C-60 is about equalization, but it is also about the harmonization of provincial and federal taxes, which is
March 9, 1992

its real purpose. It remains to be seen whether the minister will manage to persuade the various provincial premiers to go along with this kind of harmonization, and all I can say is: good luck. So that is one of the goals of this legislation. The second one is, of course, to extend the programs for two more years.
When we talk about equalization programs, we must understand what this means. Equalization is a legislative program that is usually approved for a period of five years-a federal program, of course. The current legislation which authorizes equalization programs expires on March 31, 1992.
At the meeting of finance ministers on January 30, the Minister of Finance suggested that the federal government should renew equalization programs for a provisional two-year period, from April 1, 1992 to March 31,
1994.
Suppose we look at what this means in the way of additional amounts the federal government wants to give to the provinces, and here I am referring mainly to the so-called poorest provinces, as compared to the other provinces. Renewal of the equalization agreement would involve improvements worth more than $400 million for the provinces in 1992-93. Of that amount, nearly $200 million would be permanent improvements, while $200 million would be one-shot benefits.
As a member from Quebec, I am glad to see that we in Quebec will have a large share of this amount. I believe Quebec will receive nearly $200 million of the total $400 million.
We must understand that the purpose of equalization is to help the provinces pay for post-secondary education and health care. This is very important. As the hon. member for the Liberal Party said earlier, equalization is a spin-off of Canadian federalism. Whether you are from Quebec or from any other province, you cannot ignore the fact that this is a benefit of Canadian federalism. And I am very glad to see this happening, because nowadays, we as members from Quebec are trying to explain to our constituents why it is worth while for our province to stay in Canada. Quebecers often ask us: what's the point? What's in it for us? The point is that the federal government gives us this money which, of
Government Orders
course, is collected in the form of income tax in the first place. Sometimes the money we get back is in proportion to the money collected, and sometimes it is not because the purpose is to give the money to the provinces that need it most.
Now we can, of course, challenge the figures given by the federal government. Is it fair for Quebec to receive such and such an amount, compared with what Ontario or British Columbia are getting? This can go on and on, Mr. Speaker, because as you know, figures can be made to say all kinds of things. It just depends how you want to read them.
So using the figures provided by the minister who led off the debate on this bill, I would like to quote, for each province, what percentage equalization is of provincial revenue. For instance, in Newfoundland, equalization represents 44 per cent of provincial revenue; in Prince Edward Island, 40 per cent; in Nova Scotia, 43 per cent; in New Brunswick, 39 per cent; in Manitoba, 40 per cent; in Ontario, 20 per cent. In Quebec, almost, but not quite, 31 per cent. In other words, that is the money transferred from the federal government to Quebec under equalization programs.
And just for your information, in Saskatchewan it is 27 per cent; in Alberta, 20 per cent; in British Columbia, about 20 per cent; in the Northwest Territories, about 80 per cent and in Yukon, two-thirds or 66 per cent.
Although one can disagree on the accuracy of these figures, one thing is clear: the provinces or territories that have less income to meet their expenses, which are very important, such as those for post-secondary education and health, receive the biggest pieces of the federal pie, if you want. For example, the Yukon receives 66 per cent, the Northwest Territories 80 per cent and the maritimes and Manitoba about 40 per cent.
Would this be a good reason for people in Quebec to say, "We only get 31 1/3 per cent, while other provinces receive 40 per cent of their revenue from the federal government. It is not worth staying in Canada!" I don't think so. If you believe that being Canadian is a social contract, an agreement you make with a government, then it should be done as one would in a family. Not only we but our brothers and sisters have needs, and maybe they need more than we do.

March 9, 1992
Government Orders
So it is hard for me to be against renewing this equalization program, because I think that it gives all provinces the money that they need, according to their needs. But after giving some support to Bill C-60, Mr. Speaker, I should criticize some things. My criticism will concern mainly the issue of harmonizing the provincial tax and the federal tax, commonly called the GST.
I know why so many provinces do not want to harmonize these two taxes. They know their voters very well, better than the federal government does. Yes, they are afraid, but this fear is real. Unfortunately the federal government and my friends and colleagues opposite did not share this fear, because it is based on reality, I believe. The reality is that when Parliament headed by this Conservative government is in session, our pocket-books and purses are not safe.
As for the federal government, the GST and harmonization, if you, like me and my party, are against this tax, the GST, you can hardly be for a law that would harmonize these two taxes. We agree that the provinces can have their own taxes, but we think that the federal tax, the GST, should be abolished.
Now people will say, "Hold on. Abolish it?" The Liberals do not claim that it should be abolished. The Liberals claim that it should be-I don't know what the Liberal leader said just recently-transformed or changed, but kept and modified. Okay. We already heard that before: kept and modified. I think that one reason the government is so unpopular and why it will be beaten in the next election, Mr. Speaker, is not so much the Constitution or even other legislation affecting VIA Rail, Air Canada or anything else. No, it is not that. It is not because of privatization either.
Members from Quebec know why the government will be beaten in the next election. Members from British Columbia and members of that party from western Canada know why they will be beaten. It is not so hard to understand; it is clear. It is because they passed a law that allowed the GST to exist. And now, Mr. Speaker, when I talk about abolishing the GST, it means that we would not have to harmonize the provincial tax with the federal tax and charge one on top of the other, because that is what happens. I must tell you what the government could have done instead of passing an act to implement the goods and services tax. Again, you do not
need magic to do it, and there are several things that can be done.
There is a gentleman, who is not a member of the NDP, nor a Liberal or a Conservative. I do not know what he is, but he is a gentleman who wrote a book entitled The Canadian Legislatures. He is the former administrator-I believe he was a bureaucrat-of the legislature of Ontario. His name is Mr. Robert Fleming. He talks about governments expenses, not only the federal government but both the federal and provincial governments. Mr. Fleming compared salaries, privileges, pensions, all kinds of expenses of the federal government-the Senate and the House of Commons-and of the provincial governments that make useless expenses which are in fact a real squandering of money.
In his report, Mr. Fleming tells us how much those governments cost us. As you know, Mr. Speaker, if I ask that we abolish a tax, I must also ask that we reduce the federal government expenses. In order to know where to reduce expenses, we must know where there are a lot of useless expenses, where there is a lot of money that is being squandered. According to Mr. Fleming, for all governments in Canada-that includes the federal and provincial governments-total expenses were of the order of $410 million five years ago. Today those expenses have climbed to $580 million, which represents an increase of 9.2 per cent each year. By gosh, if I were a union leader in Quebec and had obtained a contract giving the union members a 9.2 per cent raise per year, those workers would keep me there for life.
Mr. Speaker, the members of this House are not elected for life, nor in the legislatures elsewhere. In my opinion, it is indecent to have a 9.2 per cent increase per year, every year.
So if the government wants to make voters happy, if it really wants to do what must be done to harmonize taxes with every province, the solution is clear: it must abolish the GST, reduce its expenses and, finally, pass legislation that most Canadians and Quebecers could support.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member for Chambly. In his opening remarks he mentioned that the people of Quebec feel that the equalization payments, the transfer

payments, are one of the more positive reasons for the province of Quebec to stay as a part of Canada.
As the member knows, just in the last 10 years the fiscal transfers to the province of Quebec have been close to about $40 billion. I sometimes wonder, and I know that many of my constituents in downtown Toronto wonder when we hear that Quebecers want to separate. We all understand the cultural aspect of this and the emotional feeling, but just from an economic reality it seems to me and to a lot of my constituents that it is a large sum of money.
Does the member think lately that the federal presence, the federal contribution to the province of Quebec has really not been communicated clearly enough or substantially enough?
If he shares the concern that I have that it is not being communicated, does he think that maybe a very intense federal presence campaign in the province of Quebec may lessen the desire for separation?


Philip Edmonston: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Being a Quebecer, it is something I have to think about almost constantly.
It is interesting being from Quebec. One generally buys about five papers a day to get a fairly well-rounded idea of what actually happened. There are different stories coming from different perspectives, depending on whether it is a French or English paper. It could be said that both perspectives are true. It is not that there is some sort of a conspiracy or some sort of a campaign to kill an idea or to make a mockery of certain government programs or certain people who happen to call themselves federalists.
However, I believe that the presence of the federal government is badly explained to Quebecers. It is mainly because there is such a split in Quebec right now. The latest poll shows about 58 per cent of the people would vote for separation, for independence or sovereignty. By the way, all these words do not mean the same thing to Quebecers.
Independence is the hard line question, the declaration of independence, and I do not think that is as saleable as sovereignty or sovereignty association.
The federal presence unfortunately has to be promoted. We have to promote the idea of Quebec coming into Canada through administrative arrangements. We
Government Orders
do not need unanimity. We do not need what the separatists would say that we do need and that is Mr. Wells, Mr. Filmon and Mr. Getty and others on board. We can handle this thing administratively.
That is one of the things I enjoyed about the Dobbie-Beaudoin committee. We had the best minds working with us, the best people coming before us and enough time to come up with some specific proposals that gave latitude to Quebec without requiring all of the machinery and all of the acceptance from the other provinces.
Really, as much as Quebec has been criticized for not being specific enough, I think that the Dobbie-Beaudoin committee was very specific. I have no problem with defending its position.
In conclusion, I would like to say as a Quebecer that we are counting upon the other provinces to explain to us their own objections in ways that do not come out as simply meaning that we do not want bilingualism or we are unhappy with Quebec because Quebec has received more than its fair share. Quebec has not received more than its fair share and the question of bilingualism is really a red herring.


Dennis Joseph Mills: I am not sure that the member really got my point.
Nobody who believes in federalism would object to the $40 billion of fiscal transfers that went to the province of Quebec in the last 10 years. If it is more than that, then so be it.
What people have a difficult time understanding is that we accept naturally and we should accept because it is part of being in a family of federalism, the fact that we help disadvantaged regions of our country. That is part of our social contract to use the member's expression. People have a tough time understanding-and I will bring it down to the smallest example experienced last weekend-when our national orchestra with over one-third of its members Quebecers goes into the province of Quebec it cannot play the national anthem. It is very tough to understand.
Obviously we are doing something wrong in our communication. This government is a pretty good communicator in my mind. We are doing something wrong in our communication of the federal presence when after $40 billion of transfers we cannot play our national

March 9, 1992
Government Orders
anthem in the province of Quebec with the national orchestra and its one-third Quebec members.


Philip Edmonston: I understand the question from my hon. colleague. He is right in the sense that there is a lot of symbolism involved and symbolism in the sense of what sets off the polarization that we have between French and English. We can talk about the symphony where we have people in Quebec saying: "When you come with your symphony we don't want you playing O Canada". I disagree, I think O Canada is fine.
We will get beyond symbolism to the tangible in a moment. I just want to mention that symbolic gestures are taking on a life of their own in this country, which is very frightening. When we have for example one of the members of the Alberta legislature, Mr. Piquette, who was told to sit down because he was French-speaking and just simply wanted to throw a question out in French, that reverberates throughout the country.
When we have Quebec's flag being trampled on, by a Quebecer by the way, in an Ontario city-


Mr. Holtmann:: I don't know them.


Philip Edmonston: One of my colleagues on the other side said he does not know this particular individual. I am sure he does not, but this makes the symbolism very real.
I just want to respond that all the moneys which Quebecers receive through transfer payments, equalization payments, they will tell you: "We believe through our tax dollars that we deserve that amount".


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: I appreciate the opportunity to make a few comments during second reading of Bill C-60 which amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act.
I would like to begin my remarks by briefly warding off a possible misconception about this bill. Despite its title, the legislation has only a peripheral and a positive effect on federal contributions to post-secondary education and health.
The peripheral involvement of health and education results from the fact that the proposed legislation corrects a transfer shortfall under Established Programs Financing or EPF that was caused by the interaction of this health and education transfer program and another federal transfer program that often is referred to as equalization. Our focus on improving equalization in this legislative proposal therefore of necessity has a slight positive impact on EPF transfers to equalization-receiving provinces.
Having made clear what this bill is not about, I would now like to explain what this bill proposes to do.
This bill involves the renewal of the equalization program, the cornerstone of Canadian fiscal federalism. This renewal follows more than 20 months of consultation with the provinces both at the official level and at the ministerial level. This bill also will facilitate co-operation between the federal and provincial governments in the mutual administration and enforcement of each other's taxes and will simplify the payment of taxes for taxpayers and for governments.
I would like to begin with a brief overview of the purpose of equalization. The purpose of equalization which is enshrined in subsection 36.2 of the Constitution Acts of Canada 1867 to 1982 is to enable provincial governments to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.
I think it is important to stress exactly what is said, that it is to provide reasonably comparable levels of public services at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.
Because its benefits flow only to the less wealthy provinces, it is the most progressive of the major transfers to the provinces. In 1992-93 fiscal year, the government will provide about $8.5 billion in equalization to the less wealthy provinces. That is all of the provinces except for Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.
Second, in renewing the equalization program, this bill provides a package of fair and generous improvements,
March 9, 1992

Government Orders
especially when one considers the present federal government's fiscal position. These improvements are worth over $400 million for this coming fiscal year as additional dollars to the provinces for 1992-93. Of this, roughly $200 million will be ongoing and $200 million will be a one-time additional benefit.
The size of the package of improvements in this difficult fiscal period underscores this government's commitment to the principle of sharing within the country. Funding for the renewal package will be found within the existing fiscal framework. Budget priorities will be reallocated.
With this increase the government remains firmly committed to reducing the annual deficit, working toward the day when we will begin to reduce the debt, and living within its self-imposed ceiling of 3 per cent on increased program spending.
Third, I would like to make some remarks on the renewal package proposed in this bill. All the provinces receiving equalization will gain from the federal package in two ways: improvements will increase program payout and provide an additional one-time benefit, and the limit on the growth of equalization will not apply to the 1992 fiscal year.
There are four components of the renewal package made possible in this bill: first, the equalization program is renewed for two years; second, improvements will be made in the measurement of fiscal capacity; third, the equalization ceiling will be newly based or restructured in this bill, as the bill proposes; and, finally, a technical irritant related to the interaction of equalization and another federal transfer program, the Established Programs Financing, will be eliminated. The effect of this irritant has been to reduce the have-not provinces' share of cash payments under the Established Programs Financing. All the affected provinces will be compensated retroactively for the revenues they have foregone and this bill will ensure that the situation does not recur in the future.
This bill renews the equalization program for a period of two years. Further, the government will continue its extensive consultation with the provinces during this period. The two-year extension period will provide impetus and flexibility for further changes in the context of ongoing review of all major transfers to provinces. These transfers are under the three headings of equalization, Established Program Financing and the Canada Assistance Program.
I would like to make a few comments regarding the tax measures. The bill also contains measures that will facilitate the administration and the enforcement of federal taxes by provinces and vice versa.
Examples of the kind of arrangements that these measures are aimed at facilitating are the administration of the goods and services tax, the GST in the province of Quebec by the Quebec government and the collection of the Quebec sales tax at the U.S. border by federal customs agents.
In addition, administration agreements between the federal government and a province could be used to simplify remittance and banking arrangements. For example, in cases in which a province administers federal tax, a taxpayer will be able to make out a single cheque to the province covering both federal and provincial taxes. The agreements can cover income taxes or sales taxes.
These kinds of arrangements ensure better and more efficient administration of taxes and thereby contribute to a better and simpler tax system.
Before concluding my remarks on this bill, I would like to look at some of the figures and the hard evidence of what is really occurring within the major transfers from Ottawa to the provinces. It is important to know exactly what has been occurring.
I would like to look at the size and growth of the major transfers, that is, all of the transfers put together into a total package: equalization, Canada Assistance Plan, the EPF and some other transfers.
In 1984-85, these transfers represented $25.6 billion. For the coming fiscal year, 1992-93, it will be $38.9 billion. We have gone from $25.6 billion to $38.9 billion during those years. We often hear people saying that we are reducing the transfers or we are cutting the transfers. Every year, the transfers go up. They are not going down, and that is the first point.
From last year to this year, from 1991-92 to 1992-93, they will be going up from $37 billion to $38.9 billion or an increase of 5.1 per cent. That is 2 per cent higher than the self-imposed spending freeze which the federal government has placed upon itself over each of the next five years.
While we are trying to solve the problem of our annual deficit and while we are trying to get to the point of breaking even and starting to pay off on the national debt, these programs and major transfers are increasing at a rate greater, 5.1 per cent, than the ceiling imposed on all program spending. That 5.1 will take place within that ceiling, so it is important to remember that this

March 9, 1992
Government Orders
increase is a part of that self-imposed constraint on spending by the federal government.
The rate of increase, as I indicated, will be 5.1 per cent for 1992-93 over last year. Let us put that in perspective for both a have-not province and a have province. In comparing two provinces, Newfoundland as one example and Ontario as the other.
We look at the transfers to Newfoundland. They have grown at an average annual rate of 5.5 per cent since 1984-85. This year they are likely to exceed $1.4 billion. That sum of money accounts for 44 per cent of Newfoundland's revenues and also represents a total of over $2,400 this year for every person in Newfoundland. That is almost twice the national average and is the highest of any province.
That is what this transfer program means to the province of Newfoundland. As the minister indicated in his comments earlier, only the Territories receive a larger share. Newfoundland's share is 44 per cent of total revenues. In the case of the Territories, it is 80 per cent. As I indicated here, Newfoundland's is 44 per cent of total revenues and in the case of the Territories it is 80 per cent.
Let me go on to how this applies to the province of Ontario. In the case of Ontario, the transfers have grown on an average rate of 6.2 per cent since 1984-85. This year, they are expected to exceed $9.9 billion. This total revenue in transfers accounts for over 20 per cent of total Ontario revenues. When one looks at this, over those years, this is an average increase from 1984-85 of
6.2	per cent. With the freeze that was introduced last year to the have provinces-Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia-the limit on the increase, it was not a decrease but a limit on the increase, is as follows.
On equalization, there is no annual growth rate but in the Established Programs Financing it will go up by 1 per cent according to a set formula. The Canada Assistance Plan has been frozen at a 5 per cent increase, as was announced in last year's budget. That continues this year at a freeze of 5 per cent. Therefore, the total major transfers to the province of Ontario have not been cut but they have been limited in the increase to a total of
1.9	per cent.
It is important to say that the government has not cut it but has limited the increase to the three wealthier provinces or the have provinces, as we often refer to them.
The member for Chambly was up before in response to a question of the importance of these transfers to the province of Quebec. That was a good point to be made. I am glad that the member for Broadview-Greenwood raised that point. It was an excellent point because we do not often hear it.
Let me refer to what the transfer program means to the province of Quebec in comparison to the other provinces I have just mentioned. The transfers have grown at an average annual rate of 3.8 per cent since 1984-85 to the province of Quebec. This year they are likely to total $11 billion. That is more than that received by any other province in Canada; $11 billion in the
1992-93 fiscal year. This will account for about 31 per cent of Quebec's total revenues. That also means that about $1,580 on a per capital basis is going to the province of Quebec, which is close to 25 per cent higher than the national average.
These transfer payments are a vital part of the programs for all of the provinces but particularly those which are not at the national average and therefore receive additional amounts beyond those of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.
In conclusion, let me add that this bill provides what I think is a fair and generous renewal of the equalization program, while at the same time maintaining fiscal responsibility in the total increase in spending by the federal government within the self-imposed constraint of 3 per cent that the government has set for itself for each of the next five years.
In addition, by facilitating the mutual administration of taxes between the federal and provincial governments, the tax measures will contribute to improving and simplifying our countries tax system as a whole.


Mr. Ron Fisher (Saskatoon-Dundurn):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend the previous speaker for a fine presentation of a particular point of view.
March 9, 1992

In his remarks he made reference to a glitch in the calculation of the equalization payments and the Established Programs Financing resulting in a shortfall of revenue to the have-not provinces.
Could he explain what that glitch was and could he tell us how far back the shortfall went and the total amount it would have come to?


John Henry Reimer: I do not have the exact figures of the shortfall. I cannot put my hand on the exact numbers at the moment, but they will be retroactive to the have-not provinces, as I mentioned earlier. Therefore, part of the $400 million is to bring those people retroactively back up to where they should have been. Therefore, the total sum of money of a little over $400 million is made up in two parts. One is to solve part of that problem and the other is an additional $200 million to the have-not provinces to try and bring this program back on stream and to assist those who may have been suffering somewhat because of the way in which this program worked in the past.


Ron Fisher: That pretty well answers the question. I understand the $200 million as making it up and the $200 million is the 1992-93 entitlement of the provinces but the other $200 million must represent more than one year of revenue which the provinces had not received but ordinarily would have been entitled to.
I guess we do not have an answer to how far back they were owed that money.


John Henry Reimer: I am sorry, I do not know how far back that goes. Just to illustrate, the tax base improvement of this $422 million is $212 million and the EPF equalization interaction part which would go on into the next year is $211 million. Therefore, we have $212 million in the tax improvement base and part of that is retroactive, and the $211 million totalling the $422 million.
I am sorry. We could get the figures for the member as to how far back that goes. I do not have them with me.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have an opportunity to participate in the debate on this bill, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal
Government Orders
Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act.
I believe that this piece of legislation goes to the very core of what Canadians are debating in their own backyards, kitchens and coffee shops. It has to do with the arrangements going on right now between the national government and all of the provinces and the territories.
Quite frankly, I support the basic thrust of this bill because the objective of this bill is to make sure that those provinces that from time to time are less advantaged than others are supported through equalization payments so that national standards can be maintained in education and health care. To me that is really what this country is all about: a nation that can have national standards. A nation that can maintain national standards on health care and education is going to have a national will that will allow it to remain strong and vital.
The stronger we are in supporting these national standards, the more the possibility of people wanting to separate diminishes. There is so much talk going on today about whether we will we stay together.
It is important for people to understand that one of the things that has galvanized us as a country has been legislation like this that has allowed us to make sure that all regions of the country are treated the same.
Part of section 7, Tax Collection Agreements, reads:
(1) Where a province imposes taxes on the incomes of individuals or corporations, or both, the Minister, with the approval of the Governor in Council, may on behalf of the Government of Canada enter into a tax collection agreement with the government of the province pursuant to which the Government of Canada will collect the provincial taxes on behalf of the province and will make payments to the province in respect of the taxes so collected in accordance with such terms and conditions as the agreement prescribes.
I think this is something that Canadians want. The Minister of State for Finance and Privatization said earlier today in the House that this will lead toward a simplification of the tax system. Canadians are crying out for a simplification of the tax system. They are crying out for a single tax system. The paper burden not only on the personal side but on the corporate side, especially for small and medium sized business, is reaching such proportions today that people are asking if there is some political will that can organize this.

Government Orders
Normally, I am very disturbed and distressed by this government's basic thrust of dismantling and giving everything away to the provinces, but on this particular issue I see a reversal of form for the government. I see it trying to consolidate the tax collecting in this country. I see it trying to orchestrate or organize a single tax. Quite frankly, if it manages this properly this would put tremendous pressure on each one of the premiers to come onside. Just think of the millions and millions of dollars that this would save in just tax collection.
The Minister of State for Finance and Privatization was talking with me earlier about the harmonization of just the one tax, the GST, in the province of Quebec. I would scrap the GST in a flash if I ever had the chance.


Some hon. members:: And do what?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Do not bait me with "do what". There are many tax options and tax alternatives out there and I am not going to give you a pitch today on a single tax. There is a difference between single and flat. Under a single tax, we make sure the disadvantaged in our communities are looked after and we make sure in our latest discussion on a single tax that there was a $100,000 credit for small and medium sized business so that it would decrease the paper burden tremendously.
The point is that there are many options. The member has taken me off my train of thought.
The minister basically said to me that in the province of Quebec alone, just on the GST, through harmonization, there was an administration savings of $45 million. Just multiply that. I am sure it would be no less in the province of Ontario. Let us say that the rest of the provinces were equal to that. That is a possible $200 million, $150 million, $170 million savings by eliminating duplication of tax collection services.
This is precisely the kind of efficiency that Canadians want to see. This is a situation in which the national government, for once in the last few years, is not relinquishing an administrative procedure to the province, but it is consolidating and refining the tax collection system here at the national level. I think that particular aspect of Bill C-60 should be pursued more aggressively in committee to see if we can work with each other to put pressure on all the premiers to come onside with this
kind of an approach. A single tax system for the entire nation would go a long way toward increasing productivity.
Why do I say productivity? People in this country feel right now with the basic tax system, with so many different layers of taxes from so many different levels of government, that they are being treated unfairly. We know that in many instances they are. Under a system like this, accountability would be a much easier exercise. When people feel they understand a system and can make their governments accountable, they tend to produce more. They tend to be more productive. That, of course, will help our entire economy.
The other thing I propose in this bill is the fact that we make sure certain minimal national standards are maintained. I am a little bit concerned that the exercise of monitoring national standards is slipping away from us. I am concerned that the federal presence in all of the provinces is not being exercised right now. In other words, I am getting a sense that the provincial presence is now basically overtaking the national presence, the federal presence. This eventually is going to lead to a breakdown in our system.
When we have a bill like this where basically the national government is controlling the transfers to the provinces and where many of these transfers are equalization transfers, I wonder if the government should consider having some kind of federal presence formula attached to the transfer. I will be very specific. Naturally, I am concerned about this because of what has gone on in the last week or so where our National Arts Centre orchestra cannot play O Canada in the province of Quebec. I cannot imagine a national orchestra, funded by the Canadian taxpayers, coming to Tbronto and not being allowed to play the national anthem. It is beyond me.
The reason I am concerned about this federal presence so much is that I wonder if maybe it would not serve all of us a little better if all of the post-secondary schools and hospitals in Canada which are basically receiving through this fund transfers as part of the federal presence were required to put a Canadian flag in front of the
March 9, 1992

hospital or school to remind people that we are part of a national government. We are part of a country where the whole is bigger than the sum of its parts. I know that we used to have a federal presence requirement when we transferred funds to the provinces. I am wondering if we should perhaps revisit that.
The rest of this bill is basically the maintenance of a formula that has been going on for many years. At a time like this when we are suffering from deep economic pain and money is short, obviously all of the provinces require more funds to maintain these national standards. We have to be practical here and realize that the government is dealing with a limited amount of resources and not be blind to the dilemma that the government has in terms of transferring to the provinces. The government should also be aware that because of this litany of cutbacks or the cap on the Canada Assistance Plan, et cetera, that even though it is transferring money to the provinces, there is still a lot of pain because of the lien on welfare funds and the general shortage due to the economic turndown. We really are going to have to work all of this through together.
All in all, I think that I have covered most of what I want to say here. I want to repeat what I said earlier to the member from Chambly, that I think the national government has a responsibility to communicate veiy clearly and precisely the amount of moneys being transferred to all provinces in this country, especially through equalization. It is through that awareness that our chances of staying together are going to be a lot better.


Mrs. Dorothy Dobbie (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member a very brief question. I heard him mention earlier that there was no difference between a single tax and a flat tax. I would like him to explain that to us, please.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, normally a flat tax system does not take into account those people in our society who are disadvantaged. It could be single mothers, families with children, charitable organizations or small businesses. Under the single tax we have made sure that there are very progressive tax credits to look after those people in our society and smaller corporations, whereas under a flat tax it is basically one rate with no credits.


Mr. George S. Baker (Gander-Grand Falls):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question along the same line as the question that was put by the hon. member. In view of what the minister interjected when the hon. member mentioned the GST, let me ask the hon. member this question.
What would his tax system do for this growing number of people in our society who according to Statistics Canada make over $250,000 a year, report it on their income tax and do not pay one penny of income tax? A lot of them claim the child tax credit which is designed for low and modest income people. What would his tax system do to correct what this government has been doing for these people?


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Gander-Grand Falls. As he and most members in this House know so well, we have a tax act today with close to
15,000	legal loopholes or tax preferences. Many of them are antiquated and no longer meet the objective that they were originally designed to meet. Under our single tax system, all of those tax preferences would be flushed out and everybody would be in the loop.


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


STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S. O. 31
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, last week, for the second year, the Canadian Association of Social Workers observed National Social Work Week. Social work is a profession with a long tradition of dedication to improving the welfare of Canadians, especially those with special needs. These days, social workers are employed by family service organizations, hospitals, schools and child protection services. Some work directly with individuals, families, groups and communities; others do social action or research, plan social policies and develop social programs.
The 12,500 members of the Canadian Association of Social Workers should be recognized for their contribution to improving our society.

March 9, 1992


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Reginald Belair (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday the U.S. commerce department's International Trade Commission handed down yet another ruling, declaring that Canadian softwood lumber exports to the United States are unfairly subsidized.
This ruling, which has resulted in a punitive action of
14.48	per cent duty on Canadian lumber imports, is totally unacceptable. The softwood lumber industry stands to lose some $440 million a year as well as thousands and thousands of jobs.
The Americans are not playing fairly. Canadians more than ever believe that the free trade agreement is a one-way street leading straight to the United States. This is an election year in the U.S. They are using protectionism for political gain. This is the third time in 10 years that the Americans have changed their definition of a subsidy only to suit their purposes.
Clearly, this is harassment and the Canadian government should retaliate by imposing an import tax on American products. This is a provocation that absolutely needs to be responded to.


CANADA-U.S. FREE TRADE AGREEMENT
Godfrey Stanley (Stan) Wilbee: Mr. Speaker, today I join with all Canadians in expressing my disappointment in the unfair bully tactics of the U.S. government. Last Friday's announcement of a 14 per cent countervailing duty on our softwood lumber exports to the U.S. is a reflection of simple-minded political protectionism. This is completely unjustified and inappropriate in this difficult period of global economic restructuring. Fortunately for Canadians, we are able to turn to the dispute settlement mechanism of the free trade agreement for a just ruling.
I am equally disturbed by other unfair U.S. trading practices, such as the "Buy American" provision of the Surface Transportation Act. This act bars Canadian manufacturers from supplying construction materials to the U.S. for use in federally funded projects. It has had a detrimental effect on the cement and steel industries in my riding of Delta.
I encourage the Canadian government to take every step possible to ensure a level playing field for Canadian producers.


TOBACCO INDUSTRY
Mr.   Benoit@: Mr. Speaker, this morning we attended a demonstration of tobacco industry workers who came to denounce the special tax on exports of their products.
This discriminatory tax makes exports of their products uncompetitive and endangers hundreds of well-paid jobs, especially in Montreal and Quebec City. The factories concerned by these job losses are located in some of the poorest neighborhoods of our two cities, where unemployment is already over 20 per cent. We need measures to create jobs, not eliminate them.
Canada is the only country in the world to tax its products for export in this way, even though it has no import tax on tobacco products. This is an incentive for companies to produce outside our borders. This tax is wrong. It must be abolished immediately.


BOB DRAWARD
Mr. David Bjornson (Selkirk-Red River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay special tribute to a constituent of mine, Mr. Bob Draward of St. Clement's, Manitoba. He recently completed an 800 kilometre dog sled run to raise funds for the Manitoba division of the Canadian Cancer Society.
Mr. Draward was accompanied in the final leg of the trip by a young girl from Winnipeg, Marie-Josee, who is currently undergoing treatment for cancer.
The efforts of Canadians like Mr. Draward to raise funds for the Camps for Kids program and research projects is most needed and greatly appreciated.
On behalf of all Canadians, I would like to thank Mr. Draward and all the participants in the Mushing for Miracles dog sled run.
March 9, 1992


GASOLINE ADDITIVES
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, the federal government's announced intention to remove the excise tax on the ethanol portion of blended fuels is an important step in the development of this new industry, but additional action needs to be taken.
I recently toured the Poundmaker ethanol plant and feedlot operating at Lanagan, Saskatchewan, and I must say that I am impressed with the development of that industry in Canada. We have the ability to reduce our dependence on imported light crude, restore confidence in sustainable energy and agricultural economies and improve environmental quality.
Ethanol plants can be developed in various prairie communities such as Big River, Saskatchewan, in my constituency, but the industry needs a greater federal commitment, a commitment that includes greater promotion of ethanol blended fuels, a legislated mandatory 10 per cent blend for all automotive fuels and new start-up incentives for community development of grain fed production plants like the one in Lanagan.
The economy and the environment will benefit from ethanol-related development and I urge the government to continue what it has started, and to do so quickly.


U.S. UNEMPLOYMENT
Hon. Alan Redway (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, have you watched American television news lately?
I did last week, and what did I see? I saw story after story about unemployment, permanent lay-offs, plant closings and manufacturing jobs disappearing forever. No, they were not Canadian jobs. They were American jobs.
In fact, between June of last year and this past January, there were some 350,000 industrial, retail and service jobs lost in the United States. General Motors is laying off 74,000 American employees and closing 12 U.S. auto plants. IBM is reducing its American staff by
40,000	and 22,000 American jobs have disappeared at Pan-Am.
Could this be the result of free trade with Canada, the GST or cross-border shopping? What do you think?


WOMEN'S EQUITY
Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, if women really counted for this government and if public policy promoted fairness and equity, our sons and daughters would be given equal opportunities.
Women would earn the same as men for doing the same type of job instead of the current 67.6 per cent, and the government would not refuse to meet its pay equity balance.
The face of poverty would not be female with many elderly women on tea and toast and mother-led families the poorest, occupying over half of the social housing in Canada.
Public policy is about choices. This government says it is cutting taxes, creating jobs and encouraging housing, yet since 1990, it axed co-op and cut social housing by 50 per cent, leaving 1 million in desperate need. It decreased by 1 per cent the personal income surtax, saving just 2 loonies per year for a one-earner, two-parent, two-children family making $15,000 while a single taxpayer with the same income saves $7. Big deal.
It has deep-sixed its child care program.
I find it hard to understand the choices this government makes, increasing interest rates by close to 1 per cent which ups mortgage costs and takes away up to $1.8 billion to service the debt. Instead, it could have reinstated social housing and introduced a national child care program, that basic building block for women's equity.


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


HALTON-PEEL SURVEY
Mr. Garth TUmer (Halton-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, my constituents have been offering me some pretty good advice lately.
Jerry Horak of Burlington writes: "I would like to see changes to the Income Thx Act, to allow equal profitsharing for spouses, even though only one is receiving income and the other is raising a family".

Philip Tyas of Bolton comments: "Too many people place responsibility on the 'government' for all their ills and blame it for all their own shortcomings. Too few people now believe they should take responsibility for their own welfare".
Ronald Champagne of Burlington writes: "We need to educate, motivate, make people feel good about who they are and what role they play in making our country the best in the world. When you feel good about yourself, you are more productive. Productivity drives the economy."
My constituents thank you for the ongoing opportunity to put their thoughts before Parliament.


INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S DAY
Ms. Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today in commemoration of International Women's Day to recognize and celebrate the achievements of women.
As we reflect upon the important contributions women have made to our society over the years, let us join together in an effort to continue our fight to eliminate violence and discrimination against women.
Canadian women, from Nellie McClung, a pioneer of the women's suffrage movement, to Dr. Roberta Bondar, Canada's first woman in space, have provided women with inspiration to achieve their goals and contribute their full potential to society. Yet, despite these accomplishments, we still have a long way to go. The statistics speak for themselves.
At least one in every 10 women is battered by her husband or male partner. Women earn 66 per cent of men's salaries and only 2 per cent of executives are women.
It is paramount that we continue to promote the equality of all women, not just on International Women's Day, but every day.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the U.S. commerce department has announced its preliminary
ruling on Canadian softwood lumber. It is totally unfounded and unjustified. I can see no reason to hold an inquiry considering that softwood production is not subsidized in Canada or in Quebec.
Right now, the major American forest company Georgia Pacific Limited controls the U.S. commerce department and imposing a countervailing duty would only undermine President Bush's credibility in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, the viability of the forest industry in Abitibi must be preserved. We must fight this American action all the way and win for the sake of the Canadian and Quebec forest product producers.



Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Mr. Speaker, Friday's ruling by the U.S. commerce department that Canada unfairly subsidizes our softwood lumber -exports is unfair and unjustified.
The allegation about B.C.'s log export restrictions are hypocritical since the U.S. does the same thing.
Canadians who work in the over 300 forestry-dominated communities in our country will be hurt by this decision. We cannot have a repeat of the 1986 Conservative sell-out of our forests which the Prime Minister said was good for Canada.
What Canadians realize from this is that the free trade agreement is not working and that we are facing an ongoing series of trade disputes. The decision on our softwood lumber means that a trade war has started over our forests and that people working in this industry cannot rest until the free trade agreement is scrapped and we get Canadian trade back on an even keel.


MONETARY POLICY
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard):: Mr. Speaker, this government continues to pursue its inconsistent and devastating monetary policy. Not only does it have the effect of slowing down sales for Canadian exporters, but in February alone, this government had to spend $1.08 billion just to maintain it.
March 9, 1992

This government has the gall to describe as interference the Liberal policy to devalue the Canadian dollar. Maintaining our currency at an artificially high level as the Conservatives have been doing fits the definition of interference to a T. The only difference between the two is that the Conservative policy has cost us $1.08 billion in a single month on top of having a disastrous effect on our economy.
This government would be well advised to stand up for the Canadian exporters instead of defending such a harmful policy.
 * *
[English)


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Mr. Dave Worthy (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I would also like to express the outrage felt by all Canadians, and in particular British Columbians, over the recent U.S. decision to place a tariff on Canadian softwood lumber imports.
Unfortunately the decision has little to do with facts and reality, but has everything to do with the politics based on greed and hypocrisy of a few large U.S. lumber companies and the politicians acting on their behalf.
Our case in Canada is strong. We do not subsidize our forest industry. There may be some differences on how we regulate our industry, but that is our right. It is outrageous for the U.S. to try and bully a neighbour which has been its largest trading partner and closest ally since our two nations were founded.
So far we in Canada have acted properly, and we must continue to act strongly. We will win because we are in the right and because we have the free trade agreement. But we will not soon forget the shabby treatment we have received.


INTERNATIONAL WOMEN'S WEEK
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, this weekend women in all parts of the world gathered together to celebrate the beginning of International Women's Week.
This past December, for the first time, Canadians commemorated a national day for action on violence against women. At the Winter Olympics we celebrated as Kerrin Lee-Gartner won Canada's first-ever women's downhill gold medal.
International Women's Week is also a time to reflect on what needs to be done and examine our direction for the future. Bill C-26, the Public Service Act, will absolve the government of its employment equity obligations. The budget will deprive some of child benefits and others of justly-earned retroactive pay equity payments. Dissolving the Court Challenges Program infringes on the basic rights and freedoms of women.
Today we celebrate, but we must also continue to work to ensure equality for women across Canada and in all parts of the world.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Steve Butland (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, there is a strong allegation in my community and many others across the country that a tight money policy by our bankers is stifling economic recovery. A survey of small businesses in my community revealed that 50 per cent feel they are being dealt with unfairly. A more disturbing fact is that they are fearful of communicating with their banker for fear of repercussions. At my request, the vice-president of the Canadian Banker's Association was in Sault Ste. Marie. He stated that banks were low risk lenders, that financial policies are consistent across the country and that similar tight money complaints were heard in Fredericton, Saskatoon and Victoria. That does not rationalize the excess of profits, exorbitant credit card rates and outlandish service charge increases.
Is it acceptable that small business in Canada is fearful of the banking community?
I encourage all MPs to solicit feedback from the small businesses in their communities and report these findings to the local and national financial community.
Bank presidents are quick to advise governments. Perhaps our advice to them should be: "Loosen the purse strings or purse your lips."

March 9, 1992
OJtAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Prime Minister.
When I was in the United States, talking with President Bush and telling him that friendship is friendship and business is business, the Prime Minister, almost laughing, said that there was no point in getting tough with the Americans.
Yesterday after the Honda, the softwood and the magnesium cases, the Prime Minister started talking a little bit tougher.
It was the Prime Minister who gave us this trade deal. He said then that his good friends, the Americans, would never harass us the way they are doing today if we had that deal.
When will he put his money where his mouth is and do something to stop this trade harassment by the Americans?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition makes two statements that he attributes to me.
First he says that I said there was no point in getting tough with the Americans. That statement is false, completely and totally.
He then said that I said that the Americans would never harass us. That statement is false, totally and directly.
My friend is chuckling. He has just put on the floor of the House of Commons two false statements. He must withdraw those statements or corroborate them.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I will not withdraw anything. This trade deal has been managed by him and it is a disaster for Canadians today. It is only today that he is starting to talk a little bit tougher with the President. He should have done it two or three years ago but the only thing he could do at that time for the President of the United States was to sing him some Irish love songs.
Will the Prime Minister tell us what specific trade action this government is about to take against the Americans, action that will hurt them like these problems are hurting Canadians today.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure that I understand my hon. friend. He made two statements which I have said are false, which he imputes to me. He now says that he is not going to answer those, he is going to move on and refer to something else that has to do with the trade deal.
The hon. House leader will go out and check for those statements. He can check for a long time and he will not find them. My hon. friend clearly understands that there are $256 billion a year of bilateral trade going back and forth and obviously there are going to be disputes.
I have indicated in different circumstances and again recently that these particular disputes in regard to softwood lumber and Honda constitute vexatious harassment. They are not based in international trade law, they are based on pure politics at a lower level in the United States of America.
Fortunately, because of the free trade agreement, we now have a dispute settlement mechanism which no other country in the world has.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I hear the yells coming from the socialists over there. I can tell you this is the only way this will be resolved. Some of the people from British Columbia representing the softwood lumber industry would be interested to know that the socialists are chuckling when they should be cheering the fact that the only way this will be resolved is through an independent dispute settlement mechanism. If it just depended on the American trade law, we would be dead as door nails. But we are going to win because we have the free trade agreement with an independent dispute settlement mechanism.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I would like to repeat to the Prime Minister in French what he did not seem to understand in English. The three actions that the American government decided to take immediately affect Quebec industries like
March 9, 1992

lumber, magnesium and auto parts. I would like the Prime Minister to tell me when he intends to take some action.
The Americans referred none of these problems to the arbitration tribunal which the Prime Minister has praised. The Americans have taken concrete action that hurts the Canadian economy. When will we take concrete action to hurt the American economy? That is what we want to know.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my friend may be right. Perhaps I misunderstood in English because I am not an expert linguist like my friend. Perhaps he is right; I might have misunderstood, in English or in French. However, I did understand that his statement was wrong in English as in French.
The answer is that if we have a problem now under the free trade treaty, there is an independent body or mechanism to solve it, whereas before we did not have that provision.
Nevertheless, the actions taken recently by the Americans are harassment, pure and simple, as far as we are concerned. On Sunday, in a conversation with the President, I protested on behalf of the Canadian government and we will take all appropriate action to win these two cases for Canadian industry.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question with the Prime Minister.
In 1986 the Minister for International Trade, under this government, returned from the beaches of Hawaii and claimed a great victory in the signing of the agreement on softwood lumber.
The Prime Minister, and I will refer directly to Hansard at page 2364 of January 19, just to refresh his memory, said that it was a properly constituted deal and in the best interests of Canada. Well that so-called good deal was a monumental appeasement that sold out the lumber industry of this country.
Rather than whining about unnamed U.S. bureaucrats, will the Prime Minister finally learn from his mistakes? Will he give an assurance that this government will tell the President of the United States and the Congress they cannot dictate policies in Canadian natural resources? Will he also say very clearly that he will never again negotiate the kind of deal that this government negotiated that sold our rights and our sovereignty away for a price of pottage.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Sold our rights away for a price of pottage?


Lloyd Axworthy: The free trade deal sold it away.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Oh, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says that we sold the rights away for the free trade deal.


An hon. member:: That's right.


Martin Brian Mulroney: All right. Now is it the position of the Liberal Party that you would propose to revoke that deal?


Lloyd Axworthy: No, we are
going to renegotiate it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Oh.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Martin Brian Mulroney: This deal is so bad that we sold out our sovereignty, Mr. Speaker, but are they going to revoke it? No, they are going to renegotiate it.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, at least this party has the courage to say the deal is not working, that Canadians are suffering and that we are prepared to do something about it rather than standing with our paws in the air like this Prime Minister does. I wish the Prime Minister would stop saying bow-wow to the U.S. President every time he barks.
I want to ask the Prime Minister a specific question. Because of the mishandling of the lumber agreement, thousands of Canadian workers are bound to lose their jobs and hundreds of sawmills will close down. I am going to ask the Prime Minister this. Will this government now share the responsibility of paying the U.S. bond, paying the legal costs, so that we can protect Canadian workers, keep the sawmills open until we can get rid of this nefarious deal that this government signed?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated, we are challenging this matter very vigorously. We fully expect to win because the action was initiated on behalf of lobby interests in the United States, on a basis that we consider, quite frankly, to be vexatious harassment. We fully expect that before an independent court of law, as

March 9, 1992
took place during the pork dispute, Canada's rights will prevail.
My hon. friend asks with some great indignation and outrage whether we are going to do something about it. Are we going to have the courage to stand up and be counted? I will tell what we will not do. We will not follow the example of the Liberal Party when the gulf war was declared where they said: "We will stand up and fight. We will stand up and fight for Canada, but at the first shot that is fired, we are bringing the troops home.". That is appeasement, not what we are doing.


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: My question is for the Prime Minister. Since the Canada-U.S. trade deal-


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon has the floor.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Since the Canada-U.S. trade deal came into effect, Canada has lost 400,000 jobs. The manufacturing sector has been devastated, the dollar has been at a very high level, much higher than when the trade deal was negotiated and trade relations with the United States, whether we are talking about Honda automobiles or softwood lumber, have never been worse. The softwood lumber tariff decision was the final kick in the teeth to Canadians. It is clear protests are simply not enough. My question is simple. Will the Prime Minister send a real message to the United States, withdraw from talks between Canada, the U.S. and Mexico and show that Canada will not be a part of bad trade deals?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says that we have lost a substantial number of manufacturing jobs and she is quite right. We have lost these jobs during this recession when we had the free trade agreement. In 1981-82, without the free trade agreement, we lost approximately twice the number of jobs.


Mr. Martin:: But not permanent.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says "But not permanent.". We just lost the jobs, they were not permanent. The argument could then be made that because of the free trade agreement, we have lost fewer jobs today than were lost in 1981-82.
Trade has increased, even though we have been in a recession. Trade with the United States has increased by $35 billion approximately since 1988. It is going the right way. We have secured something that most other nations would give their eye teeth for; a dispute settlement mechanism in the trade involved with our greatest trading partner. This is a major acquisition. It has served Canada well and its absence would cause us enormous damage.
We think there are good parts and there are some that are less good in any arrangement. We believe that on balance this is a major advance for Canada and we propose to proceed to live with it, to strengthen it and to improve it.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: The Prime Minister says this has been a good deal for Canadians. I believe he should talk to the 1.5 million unemployed Canadians. He should talk to the many women who have lost their jobs because of those sectors being affected by this trade deal. He should talk to those businesses that have gone bankrupt in Canada.
Last week we learned that the Financial Post has seen a copy of the bracketed trade agreement with Mexico. We know that the Canada-U.S. trade deal is a bad deal for Canada. Why will the Prime Minister not send a real message to Mexico and say we are pulling out of those talks until Canada can get a good deal in trade talks?


Martin Brian Mulroney: This is interesting. Here you have a socialist party that lectures everybody else in Canada on questions of morality and helping Third World countries with developing economies. We have an opportunity here to assist a developing country, provide for 85 million citizens, not through aid, but through trade, an exchange of technology. Liberalizing trade has always been the surest way to lift countries out of economic difficulty and out of poverty, to give them an opportunity to trade into industrialized markets. The NDP is saying: "Cut off developing countries like Mexico, don't do business with them". And why? Because they are poorer than we are, because their wage rates are lower than ours.
March 9, 1992

What we are saying is we are going to open both our hearts and our doors in reasonable and thoughtful ways to enhance trade. By lowering barriers we create new wealth on both sides of the border, because we want Mexico and we want the other developing countries to have a greater share of industrialized prosperity and not less.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary.
Yesterday in Montreal, a Mexican labour leader said that working conditions for Mexican women employed in the maquiladoras were "inhuman".
Today the Prime Minister said it was in the interests of the people of Mexico to sign this free trade agreement. I have the following question for the Prime Minister: Is he sure that the standard of living of Mexicans will improve and that their salaries will increase now that he knows that the situation in Mexico is disastrous, especially where women are concerned? Will his government defend the women of Mexico and the women of Canada during International Women's Week and ensure that the free trade agreements will be fair to women and to the rest of Canada? I think the Prime Minister is not convinced the agreement will be a good thing for Mexican women.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, how blatantly paternalistic can you get? Why don't we let the people of Mexico make their own decisions? Why don't we let them decide whether they want to negociate with the United States and Canada to become more prosperous and help Mexican women and their families take advantage of North American technology and resources?
Would the hon. member have had Europe exclude countries like Spain and Portugal, just because they were less prosperous? According to the hon. member's rules, the women of Portugal and Spain would have had no access to the rich markets of Europe. Nevertheless, the Europeans expanded their market to a total membership of 12, including Spain and Portugal.
As a result, these countries have substantially improved their standard of living. That is how it works. By
eliminating tariff barriers and asking poorer countries to join, we make them more prosperous, and that is what we want. We want to help developing countries.


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
On February 28 the minister said in the House: "It is my responsibility and my duty to ensure that the laws and the policy of the Government of Canada conform to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms".
I ask the minister: How can she possibly justify staying silent while the government plans to overrule the Human Rights Commission on such a fundamental human right as equal pay for women?


Hon. Gilles Loiselle (President of the Treasury Board and Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, we did not plan to override the human rights tribunal. There was a disagreement on the interpretation of some documents that were requested from us.
For a period of five years we worked with the unions to establish our position, at the end of which we did put forward a massive amount of money to make up for pay equity. These documents were acquired or established with the understanding that they will be kept confidential. We asked the court to pass judgment on that and we intend to respect its decision.


Marlene Catterall: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the minister responsible for protecting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all Canadians.
The minister knows very well the shameful poverty among Canadian women precisely because of the kind of discrimination the government intends to perpetuate and the President of Treasury Board has indicated that it intends to perpetuate. Some 75,000 women are owed up to $1 billion by the government. Many are poor, will remain poor, will grow old poor, and will die poor.
Will the minister say now that it is wrong to deprive the government's own employees of money they have earned?

March 9, 1992
As defender of the charter, will the minister demand that they get what the Human Rights Commission says they are entitled to? Will she stop this economic abuse?


Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member does not take her own rhetoric seriously. We had a lot of catching up to do, $317 million worth, because the Liberals didn't do their job when they were in power. This government had to clean up the mess. Where were you all that time? We have paid $317 million, and we will continue to pay out $80 million annually for the sake of a cause that is vitally important: wage parity.


THE BUDGET
Mr. David Walker (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
International Women's Day provided women across this country with very little to cheer about. Canadian women are quickly discovering that they were abandoned in the latest budget. There will never be a national day care program as long as this government continues in power. There will never be adequate help for working families. There will never be enough support for the 3.5 million women and families who live off meagre assistance programs.
Could the Prime Minister explain why the government chose this budget to abandon Canadian families?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister of State (Employment and Immigration) and Minister of State (Seniors)):: Mr. Speaker, I want to give this House the assurance that, as a government, we never gave up our concept of a national day care program. We feel this is an important issue. In the last budget, we had to set a number of priorities, and that is why we decided to help those children, women and families who are most in need. The proposals in our last budget are an accurate reflection of the government's concern for helping needy families, including women who are single parents and children who really need help.


David Walker: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
Two weeks ago the minister of health stated that the national day care program was being abandoned because the government wanted to help abused and hungry children. Yet for the past seven years this government has cut back on every support for these same abandoned and hungry children, including transfer payments under the Canada Assistance Plan, health care and, now in this most recent budget, family allowances.
How can the Prime Minister possibly argue that throwing out day care will in any way help the one million poor children his government already abandoned months and years ago?


Monique Vézina: Mr. Speaker, I repeat, we never gave up our concept of day care. The measures we have put in place are fairer, more equitable and more generous to deal with a need we were able to substantiate as a result of our consultations and in line with recommendations contained in certain reports-the need to keep supporting women who need help.
As part of the special measures we have put in place, we are also able to provide support for day care. For instance, in the last budget the $1,000 deduction for day care was increased to $5,000 per child under seven and to $3,000 for children between the ages of seven and fourteen. These measures do not provide direct funding but they do help families with young children who need assistance. And that is what we are trying to achieve by improving the economy of this country.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, the official report which I have here of the finance minister shows the government last month spent $1.1 billion in taxpayers' money to push up the value of the Canadian dollar. Now the Bank of Canada is trying to do the same thing through high interest rates, up three-quarters of a per cent in the prime rate, severely
March 9, 1992

damaging consumer confidence, exports and economic recovery.
When is the Minister of Finance going to change this insane policy, or is this simply proof that those who say there is a secret understanding in the free trade deal to keep the dollar high are absolutely correct?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is aware that the Bank of Canada intervenes on behalf of the Government of Canada to smooth out any erratic fluctuations in order to maintain an orderly and stable market.
I remind the hon. member that monetary conditions have eased dramatically over the last 18 months both on the interest rate side, almost 7 per cent, and on the exchange rate side by more than five cents. Both these conditions provide for economic activity and provide the opportunities for businesses to be more competitive in the international marketplace.
Given the fact that the fundamentals are right, I believe that we can expect this kind of moderation can continue. Obviously there are times when there is certain volatility in the financial markets. We are going through that now, but I think the hon. member will agree that the policy of the government, the Bank of Canada, is indeed sound.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER INDUSTRY
Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister on the softwood lumber tariff.
Friday's ruling by the U.S. commerce department that Canada unfairly subsidizes our softwood lumber exports is unfair and unjustified. The allegations about B.C. log export restrictions are hypocritical. Just because a province wants to pursue a policy that keeps jobs at home is no reason to apply this tariff. Washington state does it, Oregon state does it, and Washington D.C. approves it.
Why punish B.C. and Canada?


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, I have to agree with the hon. member that the American case is ridiculous. He has put his finger on one of the more ridiculous aspects of it.
Raw lumber exports have been treated in a silly way by the American decision. This affects other provinces, not just British Columbia. They export raw logs themselves.
There is no doubt in my mind, as the Prime Minister has made very clear, that this is vexatious harassment. In fact when we take this to an instrument we have never had before until we had the free trade agreement, the dispute settlement mechanism, we will win and we will win for reasons the hon. member educes as well as many others.


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, the United States customs service has ruled that Canadian built Honda automobiles do not meet the North American content requirements of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.
The agreement which was intended to liberalize trade between the two countries is now being manipulated by the United States government to harass, and I use the Prime Minister's own phrase: "to harass foreign investment in Canada".
Since the agreement is evidently open to manipulation by the United States, what does the government now intend to do to ensure the secure access to the American market which was its original justification?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, I will remind my hon. friend that in fact the Americans seem to be doing this sort of thing to all sorts of countries, not just to us.
In this particular case, the determination by the customs officials in the U.S. is totally unacceptable to us. We have many allies on this issue not just in the provinces across Canada but in the U.S. as well. We are in a situation whereby we can continue to fight this vigorously. We have already indicated that we are going to pursue our rights under section 18. We have had meetings. Officials on both sides of the border have been

March 9, 1992
meeting. We actually had a very productive meeting last week, and this week we will be pursuing it further.
If we do not reach a satisfactory understanding we will continue to pursue our rights, even to go so far as to evoke the bi-national panel.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the minister claims that Canadian exporters can have recourse to dispute settlement mechanisms but he knows that they are both time consuming and costly. Further, in the case of the section 18 of the agreement which he mentions, decisions are not binding.
The question remains: How does the government intend to address the fundamental problems with the free trade agreement such as the ill-defined rules of origin and the continuing absence of any definition of subsidies? Does it intend to reopen the free trade agreement, or does it believe that it can somehow resolve these and other problems in the context of the North American free trade agreement which it is now negotiating?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, generally on this issue the hon. member's party is taking the position that GATT dispute mechanisms should settle all problems of this sort.
In fact GATT in many cases is not binding at all. It has moral suasion but it is not binding at all compared to the free trade agreement bi-national panel. Under section 18 the binding quality is far different from any GATT resolution.
Also, the time it takes through GATT to settle these issues can be not just months but years, whereas under the free trade agreement there is a set number of days, some 300-odd days when the decision has to begin and end.
There is no doubt that if you have this kind of dispute with the United States of America, it is a tremendously new, positive thing to have a dispute settlement mechanism which we did not have before the free trade agreement.


TOBACCO INDUSTRY
Paul Edgar Philippe Martin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The export tax on tobacco will neither keep people from smoking nor prevent smuggling. The danger with this tax increases with its use. This tax will only have one real impact, and that is to export our jobs to the United States.
The Prime Minister claims that he talks tough to President Bush. Will he talk tough to his minister for national revenue? Will he tell him to withdraw that tax immediately? There are 4,000 Canadian jobs at stake.


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I find it veiy interesting that the critic on the environment would take this position when the Liberal Party's critic on health said on February 13, the day after the anti-smuggling announcement: "For the sake of health and business, hurrah for yesterday's proposed new $1 per package export tax on Canadian cigarettes". Hurrah as well, for high fines for smugglers. Hurrah for the government.


Hon. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, this export tax on tobacco is not a contraband issue. It is not a health issue. It is an economic issue, a job issue.
This tax will result in even more cigarettes being smuggled into Canada, American cigarettes. One major Canadian processor is withdrawing from purchasing supplies here in Canada. This will cause massive job lay-offs within the industry.
Canadian growers plant their seedlings later this month. They need to know if the industry will survive.
Will this minister assure this House today that he will scrap this devastating export tax?


Otto John Jelinek: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that he had the guts to stand up after I just read what the health critic of his own party stated.
I can also tell him that the Non-Smokers' Rights Association today came out with a press release categorically supporting the moves of this government and supporting the Liberal health critic by the way. It was
March 9, 1992

supporting the actions of this government on the export tax.
The export tax is not there against Canadian workers. It is not there against legitimate Canadian exports of tobacco products. It is there as a broader package against the smuggling of cigarette products back into Canada. If we put a dent into smuggling, we will not only protect the jobs of Canadian retailers and wholesalers in the industry but in fact we will be in a position to protect and create some more jobs for Canadians.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In 1985 the Prime Minister categorically rejected Canadian government participation in the U.S. strategic defence initiative or star wars. Apparently star wars is now back on the Prime Minister's desk under the beguiling name Global Protection Against Limited Strikes or GPALS.
Will the Prime Minister agree that this project is in violation of Canadian policy expressed at the UN, is in violation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty of 1972 and is a complete contradiction to the findings of a committee of this House? Will the Prime Minister assure the House that not $1 of Canadian public money will be spent on this boondoggle?


Hon. Mary Collins (Associate Minister of National Defence and Minister responsible for Status of Women):: Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend would agree the threat to the proliferation of nuclear missiles has certainly been a great concern to members of this House and all Canadians. We are obviously also concerned about ballistic missile defence.
The project that my hon. colleague refers to is very different from the SDI referred to in the mid-1980s.
We have made no decision about participation. I think it would be wise, obviously, to get more information and to be involved in consultations in order to ensure that if anything does happen it would be done within the legal and the policy confines of our government and other governments as well.


John F. Brewin: Mr. Speaker, it is already very clear from public information, as the minister will know, that it is in violation of the anti-ballistic missile treaty and involves the abandonment of that treaty.
In 1985 before the government got involved and made the policy decision it made, there was a full public joint committee that toured this country and heard from the public. That was before a decision was made. That committee recommended no to star wars.
Will the minister commit the government before any Canadian involvement in this project takes place that there will be a similar public parliamentary review of this project?


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. colleague is aware that even in the U.S. Congress they have passed laws that provide very strict limitations in the context of any program.
We are not talking about the star wars program at all. It is far too early. There have not been any discussions. I think it would be wise just to get more information about what may be proposed, Canada along with other countries around the world, to determine whether or not it is a program in which we might even wish to enter into any further longer term discussions.


THE BUDGET
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.
In the minister's budget he said that we will sell surplus lands at Downsview. Following the budget speech, neither the Treasury Board officials who administer federal government lands nor the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation officials who own some but not all of the government lands at Downsview, nor the minister's own officials knew what lands the minister was referring to.
Does the minister know? If he does, will he tell us?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be able to inform my colleague that for clarification, the 50 hectares of land which are under the jurisdiction of CMHC are certainly not slated

March 9, 1992
for any other treatment than to be used for the development of housing.
As a matter of fact, with the sale that is taking place from Boeing to Bombardier, we are trying to effect a right of way for a collector road. Treasury Board and other officials of my department are trying to enhance the pace of development for these lands.


FORESTRY
Guy St-Julien: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade.
The Abitibi-Temiscamingue area is one of the great forest regions in Canada. The forest exporters will have to deposit bonds equivalent to the temporary countervailing duty of 14.48 per cent, which will represent an additional cost for Canadian and Quebec companies.
Is the minister prepared, along with the provinces and the forest industry, to face "general" Bush and his forest soldiers in order to win the fight for Canadian forest workers?


Thomas Hockin: I would like to thank my hon. friend for a very thoughtful question. He raises a very important point.
The rates of subsidy that are alleged by the United States vary enormously from province to province with a particular unfairness when it comes to its application to his constituency.
Let us look at the facts. We have only had the second of four determinations from the United States. The department of commerce will make its final determination of subsidy by May 19. Following that we will have access to the dispute settlement mechanism under the free trade agreement which we will vigorously pursue.
I would remind him as well that we strongly object to the way the department of commerce conducted this case and we will continue to make that point.


PETRO-CANADA
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated in a press release last week, following a statement by William Hopper of Petro-Canada that if a new partner is not found within 60 days then Hibernia will be moth-balled.
If it is so committed to Hibernia, then why did the Government of Canada through its appointments to the board of directors approve a drilling program for Petro-Canada for this year of wells to be drilled in Vietnam and the Mekong delta; in Columbia, the home of the drug lords; in Myanmar, the kingdom of corrupt government?
Will this minister now tell Mr. Hopper to hop to it, cancel those foreign investments and to spend our taxpayers' dollars in Canada? Then we would not need another partner in Hibernia.


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I will tiy to answer that question.
I know it is within the jurisdiction of CIDA because what the hon. member is talking about is the former Petroleum Canada International Assistance Corporation, PCIAC. It had a $50 million budget which was administered by Petro-Canada. It was through that budget that Petro-Canada was making various investments in various places around the world, some of which he mentioned. PCIAC was wound up not by this last budget but the previous-to-last budget and it was put into the CIDA account at that time.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada presently owns 80.5 per cent of Petro-Canada and has appointed every single member to the board of directors of Petro-Canada.
Not only did the government approve a Petro-Canada deal with that cruel military dictatorship in Myanmar, but this government also approved through the board of directors-they knew about it-a $6 million so-called signing bonus to be paid to these military dictators.
Why did the government allow the deal to be signed in the first place, and then the $6 million to be used as a 100 per cent deduction as a business expense on the income
March 9, 1992

Privilege
tax return of Petro-Canada, when everybody knows all it was was a bribe?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I think this issue came up once before. In fact, if I recall the last time it came up in the House it related to Canada's international policy.
From what I know as Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, first I say to the member that in a number of the allegations he makes he possibly should be somewhat careful as to what he says.
Second, I would point out to him that yes, Petro-Canada does operate in the marketplace as a company within that discipline. I have been concerned in terms of this relationship where, on the one hand, though I am very willing to take my responsibilities as energy minister, and yet Petro-Canada through the privatization is now found in another jurisdiction, the fact of the matter is that with Petro-Canada we have allowed it to operate at arm's length.
I am not pleased when the chairman of Petro-Canada makes those kinds of comments about Hibernia and I have rebuked him publicly. I frankly do not like some of the manner in which Petro-Canada operates.
In terms of the money that the hon. member mentions, I have checked as I promised I would and there was $6 million that went from Petro-Canada to Myanmar Oil which is owned by the government of that country.
I am not particularly pleased that there are all types of these kinds of arrangements made not only with Petro-Canada and the oil industry internationally but also a number of other industrial organizations as well.
I am not trying to duck the responsibility but if the hon. member wants more information I do think he should ask Petro-Canada specifically as to why and to what policy it is really directing itself when it made those deals.


ATLANTIC FISHERIES
Hon. Roger C. Simmons (Burin-St. George's):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, who will know that foreign overfishing off Canada's east coast is and has been characterized as an international scandal.
The fishermen know that who are now without jobs; the plant workers know it; last night on national radio conservationists and environmentalists from all over the world said so. They said the government ought to have acted on it long ago.
I want to ask the Prime Minister, because people down east particularly want to know where he stands on this issue: When is the government finally going to admit that the sweet talk on this one, the diplomacy, is not working? He knows that. Would he now move to take over custodial management of the transboundary fish stocks down there?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I met last week with Premier Wells and I am meeting in a few days with Mr. Cashin with whom I have spoken, so as to co-ordinate all activities, provincial and federal, in regard to how we can deal with this very serious problem.
It is not easy because as my hon. friend knows much of the problem is caused by the fact that foreign overfishing is taking place immediately outside the 200-mile zone. Therefore, while they are technically legal, they are offending the principle because fishing at that spot, across that barrier, continues to undermine the stock and ultimately destroys the resource.
I have had conservations as late as last evening with the Prime Minister of Italy on behalf of his European obligations. I have discussed it with Premier Wells as to the manner in which this can be raised as a very serious environmental issue at the Rio conference.
The minister of fisheries and I have examined a proposal of some seven or eight items that we are considering with the Government of Newfoundland and others. We view it as an extremely serious matter that affects the people of Newfoundland and Labrador in a most unfair way. We are going to act strongly and vigorously and I would be grateful for any ideas or suggestions or help the hon. member might be able to provide the government.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, there are those who would disagree with him that it is legal even from a technical standpoint. NAFO gave this government, years ago, the option of taking over custodial management, but it is good to hear that

March 9, 1992
Routine Proceedings
the Prime Minister is focusing on the issue. He will know that Canadian fishermen have had enough on this one and they have given notice that they intend to confront those pirates, the Spanish and the Portuguese, out there on the high seas with the tacit blessing of the minister of fisheries.
I want to ask the Prime Minister this. Why is the government just standing by and allowing the fishermen to go out and fight their battle alone? Would he not agree that it would be much more productive and in line with his new-found support for this cause if he were to provide some Canadian ships that go out there and accompany the trawler protest? Or is this another case of letting others do the government's dirty work for it?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are not engaging in any dirty work and we are not asking anybody to engage in any dirty work on behalf of Canada. We are a country that does not engage in dirty work nor do we encourage it.
We are a country that lives by international law and demands respect of international law by others, including the Europeans who are contributing to the destruction of an important national resource off the coasts of Newfoundland and Labrador by their deliberate and wilful acts. We are in the process of persuading them of the self-delusion of which they are capable by their very acts and the ultimate destruction of this great resource which will harm them and harm everybody in Newfoundland and Labrador.
We are pursuing this. The minister of fisheries is pursuing this vigorously in a dozen different ways. Many of them lack the drama of dispatching the navy or military instruments out there. It lacks that drama, but it retains a great sense of reasonableness and force and effectiveness on behalf of the people of Canada.
We will only resolve this important question by deploying all of the resources of the government and the people of Canada in defence of the interests of Newfoundland and Labrador. However, this does not include, and never has, the dispatching of military force against our allies while they are operating outside of the 200-mile zone.
We believe that good sense will prevail and that the programs we have in force and the activity we are going
to engender will prevail on behalf of the fishermen and the people of Newfoundland and Labrador.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to draw to the attention of members the presence in the gallery of Mr. Stipe Mesic and Mrs. Gordana Tbrich, members of the Croatian Parliament.


Some hon. members:: Hear, hear.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I initiated this question of privilege on January 22 of this year, which was the earliest opportunity that I could do so following receipt of correspondence from Mr. Douglas Rutherford, the associate deputy minister of justice.
The Table at that time suggested that it was appropriate first to seek the tabling of U.S. justice department correspondence by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Trade.
On February 25 of this year, the chair, the Hon. John Bosley, wrote back advising that there was no direct reference to the letter in the minutes for the purpose of tabling. However, the contents of that letter were referred to on page 1325 of the October 29, 1991 committee hearing.
I believe I can demonstrate, Mr. Speaker, that there is a prima facie case of a senior public servant knowingly misleading a member of this House. This is a most serious contempt of Parliament and cannot go unchallenged.
The associate deputy minister of the litigation section, Mr. Douglas Rutherford, was a witness before the external affairs and international trade committee on October 29 where he gave evidence on the extradition of Leonard Peltier from Canada to the United States. Mr. Rutherford, following adjournment, advised me that he had in his possession the U.S. justice department response regarding the Peltier extradition matter that was referred to in a letter between Judge Heaney of the U.S. Court of Appeal and Senator Inouye from Hawaii. He produced a file and held the file to allow me to read the

March 9, 1992

letter. In fact, Mr. Rutherford turned the pages to allow me to complete reading the letter. It was a recently dated and signed document from the U.S. department of justice.
Unknown to me, Mr. Rutherford had no legal authority whatsoever to reveal the privileged contents of the letter. In fact, in his November 1, 1991 letter to the U.S. department of justice he requested consent for disclosure three days after having disclosed it to me in the committee room, 269 West Block. He in fact offered up a mechanism to block the release of the document on the Canadian side if the U.S. government wanted that done.
The prima facie basis of the case are the following in point form. First, I saw the letter and read both pages and can identify it. Second, I saw the date and signature. Third, the associate deputy minister, Mr. Rutherford, permitted me to read the letter and then denied that he had done so in writing. Fourth, Mr. Rutherford then suggests: "Had you been able to read the actual letter" suggesting that perhaps I, as a member of the House, had done something untoward or possibly illegal about my access to that letter. Fifth, the fact is Mr. Rutherford disclosed material for which he did not have disclosure authority and subsequently made false statements and attempted to cover that up. He was in violation of both ethical and legal authorities.
He therefore chose to deliberately mislead a member of the House in an attempt to sanitize his own improper, unethical and illegal activity.


SPEAKER'S RULING
Mr. Speaker:: I have listened. The hon. member has given me some indication of the line of argument that he was going to take and I have listened carefully. I do not think that the hon. member needs to pursue it further at the moment.
I have to say to the hon. member that there are other avenues available to him which he may decide to use. One of them of course is to take further steps within the committee.
I am not persuaded at the moment that there is a prima facie case of privilege. There may be a matter in which the hon. member takes very strong exception and that matter might be pursued further, but I have to
Routine Proceedings
advise the hon. member that certainly at the moment there is not a prima facie case and I would ask him to accept that, as I know he will.
There may be further developments in the matter and if there are, I would be prepared to hear them further.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (C) for the financial year ending March 31, 1992, was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read to the House.

Gilles Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to propose the following pursuant to sections 85 and 86 of the Standing Orders of the House:
That Supplementary Estimates (C) for the fiscal year ending March 31st, 1992, which were tabled today, be referred to various standing committees as follows:

Since there is a detailed allocation of the estimates from various committees and the list is lengthy, if it is agreeable to the House, I would ask that the list be printed in Hansard as if it had been read.


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: List referred to above is as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes lc, 7c, 8c, 15c, L20c and L25c
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture Agriculture, Votes lc, 5c, 20c, 25c and 30c To the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture Communications, Votes lc, 2c, 10c and 15c Secretary of State, Vote 5c

March 9, 1992
Routine Proceedings
To the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations
Industry, Science and Technology, Vote 107c
Privy Council, Vote lc
Public Works, Votes lc, 10c and 17c
Supply and Services, Votes lc, 5c, 11c, 12c, 13c, 14c and 15c
Treasury Board, Vote lc
To the Standing Committee on Environment
Environment, Votes lc, 5c, 10c and 30c
To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and International Hade
External Affairs, Votes 10c, 11c, 15c, 35c and 57c To the Standing Committee on Finance Finance, Votes lc, Lllc and 17c National Revenue, Vote 5c
To the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries Fisheries and Oceans, Votes lc and 10c To the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General Justice, Votes 5c, 15c and 25c Solicitor General, Votes lc, 10c, 11c and 30c
To the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration
Employment and Immigration, Votes lc, 6c, 15c, 16c and 25c Labour, Votes 5c and 15c
To the Standing Committee on House Management Parliament, Vote 10c Privy Council, Vote 15c
To the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs
National Defence, Votes 5c and 20c Veterans Affairs, Vote lc
To the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare, Social Affairs, Seniors and the Status of Women
National Health and Welfare, Votes lc, 5c, 10c, 15c, 20c and 25c
To the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, Regional and Northern Development
Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, Votes lc and 5c
Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Votes 31c, 32c, 35c, 36c and 45c
Industry, Science and Technology, Votes lc, 5c, 6c, 75c and 80c National Health and Welfare, Votes 26c and 27c To the Standing Committee on Transport Transport, Votes lc, 2c, 10c, 15c, 16c, 27c, 28c, 35c, and L46c.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
1990-1991 ANNUAL REPORT
Hon. Kim Campbell (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I am pleased to table, in both official languages, the annual report of the Department of Justice for the year 1990-1991.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 42 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Hon. Gerry Weiner (Minister of Multiculturalism and Citizenship):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House to invite all Canadians to celebrate their membership in the Commonwealth. Canadians can take pride today in the accomplishments of this dynamic institution.
The Commonwealth is very diverse in composition yet it is united by a common heritage and common values. This community and diversity is the Commonwealth's greatest strength. It is now a family of countries grown from common roots to include more than one-quarter of the world's population, over 1.3 billion people on five continents.

In the last 12 months, the Commonwealth has redefined its role and its direction. At the meeting of the heads of Commonwealth governments in Harare last October, we reaffirmed our commitment to the principles of peace and order, personal freedom provided for in the act, recognition of racial equality, and closing of the gap between the rich and the poor. More importantly, the heads of governments have made sta- tements in Harare that express a new set of objectives, values and priority strategies for the Commonwealth of the 1990s
March 9, 1992

and the beginning of the next century. Prime Minister Mulroney, who was a member of the high level task force, made a very useful contribution to the drafting of the text of the declaration and emphasized the important contribution of this stable democratic group at a time when many countries are turning to democracy.

The renewed Commonwealth is dedicated to the protection and promotion of the fundamental human values important to Canadians and to citizens of the Commonwealth; good governance, democracy, fundamental human rights and women's equality.
One important facet of the Commonwealth has not changed. The vigour and relevance of the Commonwealth springs from its pragmatic approaches and from its grassroot ties. The Commonwealth nurtures links between our societies, establishes people-to-people contacts in a vast international network of professional, cultural and sports organizations. These organizations constitute the backbone of the Commonwealth and ensure its continuing vitality. Members know that these organizations reach into this very Chamber in the form of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association which, per the Harare declaration, should play its full part in promoting the objectives of good governance, democratic development and the promotion of human rights and women's equality in a spirit of co-operation and mutual support.

The capacity of the Commonwealth to establish links between different nations is a living symbol of international co-operation, as well as an example for other international organizations. Canada was honoured by the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs presided the meeting of ministers for external affairs when they met in New Delhi last September, at which time they recommended the gradual lifting of the sanctions taken against South Africa. The following month in Harare, the heads of governments followed up on this recommendation and lifted the sanctions that directly affected the population. Canada is pleased to see the progress accomplished so far toward a reform in South Africa and it will continue to promote the negotiation
Routine Proceedings
process between the South African government and the other groups.

The Commonwealth continues to be one of Canada's most important windows on the world. We want to ensure that it not only continues as a force for peace, human rights and development, but also becomes a model and a catalyst for new forms of international co-operation in the 1990s and beyond. As the new century approaches, we should all remember that one of the many advantages of the Commonwealth lies in its ability to spark friendly, open and fruitful dialogue.
Today we celebrate the Commonwealth in the knowledge that Canada is not alone as it faces the global challenges of the future. We are among family.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to join with the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs in asking all Canadians to celebrate Commonwealth Day, which marks their membership in the Commonwealth. Of course we believe that the Commonwealth is a very attractive international organization for Canada and the whole world.

The Secretary of State pointed out in his remarks, and it was an appropriate time, that the Commonwealth like every other international body is going through a period of re-evaluation, review of the future directions and missions. Certainly we were all supportive of the statements at Harare in setting out new goals and values and purposes. It would be less than honest if we did not begin to raise the question of what has happened since. Where is the beef? What is happening in the Commonwealth and what is happening to Canada's commitment to it?
I suppose there is no more profound way of indicating a government's commitment to a project or a program or an organization than where it puts its money. It is interesting that in the estimates tabled some 10 days ago, there is a substantial reduction in the Government of Canada's commitment to the Secretariat of the Commonwealth.
I recognize that all organizations must tighten their belts accordingly, but one has to measure this belt

March 9, 1992
Routine Proceedings
tightening and the reduced commitment of the Canadian government to the Commonwealth against the increased needs that many of the Commonwealth countries are facing, indeed that the Commonwealth organization should be supplying. There was one lesson to be drawn out of the Harare declaration.
The Commonwealth must now begin to target specifically a number of key areas of support in the development of democratic governments and in the promotion of human rights.
I was dismayed in reading a report from Amnesty International just last week pointing out the frequent incidents of forceful abuse of women by governments- torture, rape, interment-included among its several Commonwealth countries.
We, as a member of the Commonwealth, have been less than active in bringing that very serious and very specific issue to the forefront. Perhaps it was most clearly demonstrated in the events in Kenya in the past three or four weeks when the leader of the opposition, one of the outstanding women in the Commonwealth organization, was beaten, tortured, put in prison and only finally let loose after there was some protest.
It does demonstrate clearly that the Harare declaration has a long way to go before it becomes reality. It would seem to me that the responsibility of Canada in many of these cases, as the secretary himself stated, is to put forward the equality of women, to use one example, as a priority for discussion within Commonwealth circles to see how we can begin to respond to that very serious issue.
I think Amnesty International is not an organization known for excesses in its assessment or analysis. Here is an area in which we can do some very specific good. It may not be as dramatic as fighting apartheid was back in the days when that scourge was on the world stage and which is now we ameliorating, we believe.
Certainly as we move into a period in which more and more people at the grassroots are reaching out to build a new foundation of human rights and democratic institutions, there is a crying need for us to support them. That is purely, if you want to put it in the crassest terms, enlightened self-interest.
The more democracies there are, the less trouble we will have in the world. There will be fewer possibilities of invasion, transgression, conquest and forcible use of arms. It is a good investment.
I know I do not have much time to respond to the hon. minister's statement, but for all the reasons that were enunciated in the original statement about the value of the Commonwealth, its history, its experience, its ability to bring countries together from diverse cultures and diverse regional areas, now is the time to be giving it a new set of activities, a new set of missions.
It is not the time for grand declarations of heads of state at photo opportunities once a year, but rather the time for using the Commonwealth to bring to the fore very specific initiatives, such as the kind I mentioned. There can be many others.
I say to the members of the government that it would be valuable to our Commonwealth partners if Canada became a far more active advocate on the world stage as we go to G-7, OECD or IMF meetings to tackle the problem of Third World debt, which is crippling many of our Commonwealth nations and bringing them to then-needs.
I might point out that because of the austerity measures being imposed by international financial institutions, the victims again are women, children, schools. Again, we are not on the forefront. We have not taken leadership at the IMF or the G-7 saying: "Do something about it".
The most important way we can celebrate Commonwealth Day is to give the Commonwealth organization something real, valuable and meaningful to do. Members of the Commonwealth look to this country to take that initiative.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I too am pleased to rise today on the occasion of Commonwealth Day to recognize the challenges that face us as a nation and that face the Commonwealth at this very important time in global history.
Today we in Canada join with some 49 other countries in the Commonwealth in marking Commonwealth Day. Many of us were particularly pleased that in 1990 the 50th member state of the Commonwealth, the free nation of Namibia, joined the Commonwealth.
March 9, 1992

I think it fair to say today that perhaps more than ever before people within the Commonwealth, leaders within the Commonwealth, are questioning the direction, the focus and the objectives of the Commonwealth itself.
Just today at a luncheon hosted by the Speaker with High Commissioners from the Commonwealth, Senators, members of this House, we heard from the Dean of the Commonwealth High Commissioners, the High Commissioner of Ghana, who spoke eloquently about the particular challenge that faces the people of the Commonwealth, the challenge of grinding poverty and injustice that faces too many of our member nations.
At the most recent conference of heads of government of Commonwealth, which was held last fall in Harare, Zimbabwe, leaders of the Commonwealth had an opportunity to clearly state their commitment to fundamental human rights, to a serious implementation of those principles.
A special working body headed by Flora MacDonald stated that the Commonwealth's record with respect to human rights has, in many instances, left a great deal to be desired. Despite a clear challenge by the working party headed by Flora MacDonald, the Commonwealth did not respond. Instead, the closing declaration of the Commonwealth in Harare was, in the words of Flora MacDonald, full of pious words that were inadequate to deal with the flagrant abuses that take place in Commonwealth countries.
Let us be clear when we talk about human rights. We are speaking of traditional civil and political rights, rights which are brutally suppressed in too many member nations of the Commonwealth. We are also speaking of economic, social and cultural rights. It is here where there are great challenges remaining. The fact is that while Canada on the one hand supports a clear commitment to democracy, to the rule of law, to freedom of speech and freedom of association, too frequently Canada within the World Bank, within the IMF, also supports policies of structural adjustment which increase the gap between rich and poor.
Surely as Canadians we recognize that the right to decent health care, housing, a proper diet are just as
Routine Proceedings
fundamental, just as important, as the right to the traditional civil and political rights.
As the very distinguished Canadian scholar Frank Scott has pointed out, the trappings of democracy hang loosely on an emaciated body politic. It is essential that our government play a leadership role within the Commonwealth in ensuring that the Commonwealth means business when it comes to human rights, that there is a mechanism for implementation
Particularly in this year of the international conference on the environment in Rio de Janiero in June, we must recognize that human rights must include the right to a clean and sustainable environment as well.
I recently returned from travelling in a number of Commonwealth countries such as Sri Lanka, India, Malaysia and I very much regret that in each of those countries there are serious human rights abuses that continue.
In the context of Malaysia, for example, repressive security laws are in existence. As well, we know that the right to protection of the environment, the rain forest in Sarawak, is being devastated and the very survival of indigenous peoples, particularly the Penan Indians, is at stake.
I think it is time that while we recognize the contribution the Commonwealth has made, we also have to recognize that the Commonwealth is becoming an increasingly irrelevant institution. Unless it finds its bearings, unless it recognizes the challenge that lies ahead with respect to human rights in the broadest sense of the world, it will continue to be merely an old boys club of the former colonies. Surely that is not acceptable.
I say in closing that Canada will be taking part in hosting the Commonwealth Games in Victoria in 1994 in the constituency of my colleague from Victoria. I would hope that by 1994 Canada would recognize that our most significant commitment in the Commonwealth can be a reaffirmation of the principles of democracy, peace, of the rule of law, of true respect for human rights and equality, of a clean environment. These must be the values that guide the Commonwealth if it is not to fade into total irrelevance.

March 9, 1992
Routine Proceedings



STATUS OF WOMEN


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I rise with pride today to join with women across the country and around the world to recognize International Women's Day.
International Women's Day is an occasion for all of us to take a few minutes to pause and reflect on the progress of women toward equality in our society. We applaud the achievements of the past, we endorse the initiatives of the present and we look ahead to the challenges of the future.
International Women's Day was born over 80 years ago out of the struggle of women in the sweat-shops of the garment industry. They were working to achieve better pay and better working conditions. Clearly we have come a long way since the turn of the century, but we still have a long way to go.
History teaches us that many of the advances that women have made have come from solidarity. In Canada, women joined together over 60 years ago to fight for the right to be considered persons under Canada law.
Today, hundreds of national and local women's organizations are active in promoting all aspects of women's rights. In partnership with government, labour and other sectors, they have been successful in bringing issues of concern to women to the forefront of the national conscience because women's issues must become society's issues.

Mr. Speaker, we must never lose sight of the achievements of women who have contributed to the richness and vitality of Canadian life. I was therefore pleased this morning to announce that October would be women's history month in Canada.
We chose October because it was on October 18, 1929, after a long hard struggle, that Canadian women won a victory in the "Persons Case" that made them eligible for the Senate.

Women's History Month will promote public awareness of achievements like the persons case, achievements that are significant but often forgotten.
Women's History Month will encourage Canadians to reflect upon and celebrate women's contribution to our history as a nation and as a people.
Women's History Month will remind us of the initiatives of the present that are built upon the accomplishments of the past. Thus, Women's History Month will help foster a better understanding of the diverse roles that women play in contemporary society.
Canada is also proud of its record of achievement for women both domestically and internationally. We are making important progress toward equality on many fronts.
The government has put violence against women at the top of the public agenda. What began as a grassroots women's movement with its origins in rape crisis centres and shelters for battered women has now moved on to the national stage with the establishment of the Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women which is currently criss-crossing the country and talking to women and men and seeking solutions and preventive measures.
So we eagerly await the recommendations of the panel this December and to be able to move forward to solutions.

Last year, the parliamentary committee on health, welfare, social affairs, seniors and the status of women published recommendations on violence against women in its report entitled "The War on Women". The government responded in November with initiatives in prevention and education and changes to the legal system and to services for victims, offenders and members of their families.
In the past year, the House also passed stricter firearm control measures and proclaimed December 6, the anniversary of the massacre of 14 young women engineering students in Montreal, a National Day of Remembrance and Action on Violence against Women.
March 9, 1992



Canada is also proud to be in the forefront of international efforts to promote political, economic and social equality for women working within key international organizations. Within the United Nations we are one of the leading countries addressing the global problem of violence against women.
Canada recently sponsored a meeting of international experts to develop strategies to eliminate all forms of violence against women. In our Canadian delegation to the UN Commission on the Status of Women, which is meeting in Vienna this week and next, we will be seeking broad support for our international measures to counter violence against women.
We have also been working with the Organization of American States to develop an inter-American convention to eradicate violence against women. Indeed, within the Commonwealth, which we are also honouring today, Canada was successful in achieving renewed commitment for equality for women at our recent heads of government meeting. In fact, the Commonwealth leaders endorsed what is now called the Ottawa Declaration on Women in Structural Adjustment which the status of women ministers developed during their meeting here in Ottawa and which is aimed at promoting economic equality for women.

At the recent francophone summit, the Prime Minister announced that Canada would sponsor the establishment of a network of legal aid and referral centres for women in order to meet the needs of women in those countries.
On this International Women's Day, Mr. Speaker, while we celebrate our achievements of yesterday and today, it is also important to look to the next decade and the work that remains to be done to break down the final barriers to equality for women.

The challenges are many. I would like to see a future in which the only limits to women's achievements would be delivered by each individual herself. I would like to see a future in which half the seats in this House, in the Senate and in elected chambers across the land are held
Routine Proceedings
by women. And I would like to see a future in which women hold half the management jobs in both the public and the private sectors, and employers consider it routine to help workers better balance work and family responsibilities.
But most of all, I would like to see a future in which Canadians resolve conflicts in non-violent manners and treat each other with fairness and respect.
To achieve this future, women and men must continue to work together. The lessons of the past and the present, the things done when we work together to bring about change, must not be forgotten.
Canada's commitment to the promotion of equality for women right across the world remains firm and unequivocal. On the occasion of International Women's Day, I wish to assure this House that the promotion and protection of women's rights will continue to be a fundamental aspect of both Canadian domestic and foreign policy.


Beryl Gaffney: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the minister on this very important International Women's Day.
Women have made significant gains in the .u^i century. However, we still are a long way from being equal citizens. We have improved our position in society, not because those in power acted in an altruistic manner, believing that women were deserving of equal rights in the social, political and economic realms; rather, women have earned these rights and the right to be considered citizens and persons because they had to fight long and hard battles, most often without allies. Our rights have almost always been accorded grudgingly.
We are far from having obtained true equality. Women still earn only 65 per cent of what men do, and the glass ceiling still prevents women from climbing the corporate ladder and from reaching the upper echelons of the civil service.
This government's record belies the commitment to the advancement of women. At best, it is an uncomfortable commitment. Stricter gun control laws and the panel on violence against women are notable achievements for all women and for society in general. However, what the government gives with one hand, it takes away with the other.

March 9, 1992
Routine Proceedings
I listened very carefully to the minister responsible for women's issues speaking of what she would like to see women achieve in the next while with regard to a high percentage at the corporate level and a high percentage here in the House of Commons. I think we all would like to see that. However, when I look at what has happened in this recent budget, it gives me great doubt that she is really serious. For instance, this recent budget has axed day care, thus reneging on the government's 1984 electoral promise to create a national day care system.
It has stated that it will not make retroactive payments prior to 1990 for pay equity. It has announced that it will cancel a spousal allowance program should it result in substantial increases in government funding. It has cancelled the Court Challenges Program, denying many women, among others, the chance to make their charter rights become reality. It has cut back spending on social housing and cut the co-operative housing program, two programs upon which many Canadian women are dependent. Royal commissions and new laws are not sufficient when the financial underpinnings are absent. Good publicity, bad social and economic policy is just not good enough.


Ms. Lynn Hunter (Saanich-Gulf Islands):: Mr. Speaker, when women gather these days, it is often to talk about hardship. We talk about violence and we talk about fear, violence against our sisters, our friends, our mothers, our daughters and ourselves, and our worries for the next generation. Today, however, for International Women's Day I prefer to honour our achievements of the past, reflect on the connections between women's lives and celebrate our role in the ongoing struggle against discrimination.
Women have had to struggle for every right we have. I stand here now, a member of Parliament, when once I would have been barred from voting. I have been inspired by the first woman member of Parliament, Agnes Macphail, who was a member of the party which later become the New Democratic Party. While journalists quoted the speeches of her colleagues, they criticized the cut of her clothes, focusing solely on her appearance. All eyes were upon her watching, waiting for a mistake that would prove women were not fit for politics.
When I was first elected, I thought things had changed. Yet still, as women members of Parliament, we
face ridicule. Journalists continue to focus on our appearance. We rise to speak in the House of Commons surrounded by a sea of suits.
I want to acknowledge the minister's comments regarding wanting to have 50 per cent of the House of Commons as women and the Liberal spokesperson applauding that. I want to point out that the New Democratic Party has taken the only steps possible for affirmative action that would encourage more women to run. It was a tough decision, but this party has once again been put on the forefront of that cutting edge, trying to include women in the politics of Canada.
The difference between Agnes Macphail and me is that although it often feels lonely being a woman member of Parliament, I am not alone. I look at the bench in front of me and see my leader, the first woman leader of a major federal political party in North America. I watch my leader rise and speak out for women, and I am proud.
Woman are often asked a curious question and those of us who are women in the House will remember this. We are asked: "Do you work?" Women have always worked. We have worked in our homes, bearing and raising children, cleaning, cooking. We have worked in the fields as slaves, as labourers and as farmers. We have worked as nurses on the front line, even though in times past we were excluded from becoming doctors because men said we could not stand the sight of blood. We have worked at the side of husbands, as merchants and are now setting up our own businesses and succeeding at a greater rate than our male counterparts, despite reduced access to credit.
We still face our many battles. A recent motion in the House of Commons to provide adequate funding for birth control research and education put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for New Westminister- Burnaby, was defeated by the Conservative members of Parliament.
The Court Challenges Program was a victim of the recent budget cuts. This action by this federal government acts to silence women and other disadvantaged groups. Thankfully the B.C. government announced only last week ongoing operational funding of over $1 million a year for women's centres.
March 9, 1992

The provincial government is acknowledging the value these centres bring to each community, while in stark contrast the Conservative government's budget once again says no to women, no pay equity, no child care. Know your place.
We are women who know our place all right. Our place is one of equality. On International Women's Day and every day I urge you to think of building a world-wide movement for social justice, for positive change for all people, for without a dream and a vision where would any of us be?


PETITIONS
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have several hundred petitions to present with many thousands of signatures from my own riding of Hamilton Mountain, from around the Hamilton area and indeed from right across Canada.
These signatures are to be added to the over 250,000 signatures that have been presented to the clerk by me. There are many thousands that have been presented by other members of Parliament.
These petitioners feel that there are serious deficiencies in the criminal justice system. They feel that sentencing in crimes of violence does not appropriately reflect society's abhorrence of violence in order to act as a true deterrent to protect the public by removal of the offender from society.
These petitioners request that Parliament recognize that crimes of violence against a person are serious and abhorrent to society. They ask that the government amend the Criminal Code of Canada, the Bail Reform Act of 1972 and the Parole Act accordingly.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition from hundreds of individuals from my riding of York West.
The petitioners largely recognize that the drug abuse situation in metropolitan Toronto is unfortunately on the increase, ruining the futures of our young and the livelihoods of families.
Government Orders
They are asking that the Government of Canada amend the Narcotics Control Act where seizures coming from the assets of a drug offence or offender are immediately channelled into general revenues in the federal coffers in Ottawa.
The petitioners are asking that this be amended so that part of the moneys remain with our local police forces and local organizations that are clearly on the leading edge of battling this wave of drugs.
I hope that the Solicitor General will take stock of the countless people who are requesting that so we can win this battle in the name of our young, our families and our communities.


Joseph R. (Joe) Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour for me today to present this petition on behalf of over 100,000 Canadians whose parents either came from Finland or were of Finnish origin.
Thunder Bay is extremely proud to have in the area I represent the greatest community of Finnish people in the world living outside of Finland. It is truly a momentous occasion as much as this is the year that Finland is celebrating 75 years of political independence and political freedom.
The petitioners that I represent here from Thunder Bay ask that the good relations and the continuing good spirit that exist between Canada and Finland continue to exist with spirit and freedom for the two great countries.


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Brian L. Gardiner (Prince George-Bulkley
Valley): Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 36 to present a petition which reflects the ongoing fight by the New Democrats to scrap the very unfair GST.
These petitioners are primarily from the interior of British Columbia. They call upon the government to bring in an effective minimum tax on wealthy individuals and corporations and call for real progressive tax reform in Canada.
[Stage Direction]
March 9, 1992
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER	GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk)
Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 221 will be answered today.


Ms. Callbeck: How many federal public servants are there in Prince Edward
Island and how many are in positions designated bilingual?


Gilles Loiselle: As of December 1991, there were 1,970 active Public Service employees represented by Treasury Board in accordance with the Public Service Staff Relations Act, Schedule I, Part I, working in the province of Prince Edward Island. Of these, 441 employees occupied bilingual positions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question as enumerated by the parliamentary secretary has been answered.


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


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


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I wish to inform the House, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b), that because of ministerial statements Government Orders will be extended by 32 minutes, unless the government whips can get together to defer or delete it.


[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. Paproski):: There were two minutes remaining on question and comments.


Brian L. Gardiner: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you could check with the Thble. I had written late last week to Mr. Speaker regarding an emergency debate in the House under the provisions of Standing Order 52 on the important issue of softwood lumber. I am wondering, Mr. Speaker, if you could check on that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I do not have it in front of me. I will check on it and get back to the hon. member.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I just want to finish commenting on the last point that was put to me before Question Period.
For our viewers out there, we were talking about Bill C-60 to amend the fiscal arrangements between the national government and the provinces. Basically this bill makes sure that our equalization payments or transfers to the provinces are brought up to speed.
As I was saying before Question Period, the importance of this bill in maintaining our national will is obvious. As long as we as a national government are able to take money from those provinces that are doing exceedingly well and transfer it to provinces that are not doing so well so that national standards on education and health care can be maintained, I think our ability to function as a nation is going to be maintained.

The point I was trying to suggest to the government had to do with federal presence. I believe there should be some amendment to this bill that could be discussed when we are in committee. The amendment should somehow promote the federal presence in all the institutions supported by federal transfers. All schools in all provinces of the country should fly Canadian flags. All hospitals in all provinces should have Canadian flags. There should never ever be any question about the national anthem and where it should be played. It should be played in every part of this country. If a particular province were to refuse to fly the Canadian flag, if it were to refuse to play the national anthem, then quite frankly I think we should revisit this kind of an arrangement.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of this House, at ten o'clock a.m. on Ihesday, March 10,1992, the Speaker shall call upon the President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Constitutional Affairs to make a short statement on the recognition of Louis Riel; that the provisions of Standing Order 33(2) apply; that upon the completion of remarks by a member for each of the parties a motion regarding the recognition of Louis Riel shall be deemed moved and the question shall be deemed put and adopted without debate or amendment; and that immediately thereafter the House shall proceed to the daily routine of business proceedings.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Leonard William (Len) Taylor: Mr. Speaker, before we agree I would just like to clarify something with the hon. parliamentary secretary.
The motion that was just read to the House calls for a motion to be deemed moved and the question deemed put and agreed to without debate or amendment after some speeches. In essence, we are being asked to approve a motion that is not before the House, that we have not seen.
I would like assurances from the parliamentary secretary that in fact the motion that will be put will be one
Government Orders
that has been under discussion by the House leaders of the parties for the last couple of months.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, I can give the hon. member the assurance that when I move a motion it is always based upon the negotiations and discussions we have had.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, we are back at a subject that I would have thought this government would not want to be reminded of. We are talking about amendments to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and the Federal PostSecondary Education and Health Contributions Act.
Why would the government not want to be reminded of those particular subjects? Anybody who has looked for a hospital bed for elective surgery in almost any part of this country could answer that question.
If there were no other irritants out there, no other reasons why the people of Canada are angry at this government and in particular at the Prime Minister, though not exclusively at the Prime Minister, they would be angiy about this particular subject. If the Prime Minister, were to disappear from the scene tomorrow there would still be a lot of anger because the people over there have aided and abetted what he has done to social programs, to education cost, and to health care all over this country.
I was about to say that if the people of Canada had no other reasons to be angry they would be angry on this particular subject because almost every family out there has been adversely affected or, let us put it bluntly, has been kicked in the guts by this Prime Minister and this government. How do I mean kicked in the guts in terms of trying to get a bed for elective surgery? They have had to wait because of the cutbacks to the provinces.
Let me refer to my own little province of Newfoundland as an example of this government's cutbacks on account of health care and post-secondary education. I refer to the little province of Newfoundland, little in terms of population but much larger in terms of geography and resources and spirit of its people and all those things. In terms of population it is one of the smaller provinces of Canada with just a half million souls, some
560,000	people on the island and in Labrador.

March 9, 1992
Government Orders
That little province, in terms of population, will have lost $845 million by the year 1996. That is over the 10-year period from fiscal 1986-87 when this government began putting the blocks to health care and post-secondary education by rolling back payments to the provinces in respect of those accounts under the so-called EPF, the Established Programs Financing.
The member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louise says this is not true. I think what he is doing is contradicting the Department of Finance figures that tell me that in the 10 years fiscal 1986-87 to fiscal 1995-96 the savings in respect of the 1986 budget, the amount that will not be paid that would have been paid without the cut-back in the 1986 budget, will amount to $845 million.
He is playing with some figures. He realizes that because of the announcement the minister made in January, Newfoundland is going to receive a few shekels, that it will be down $845 million now because it would get $31 million of that as a result of this particular bill. He has in mind that we are not talking $845 million but we are talking something closer to the $800 million.
I want to say to my good friend, the member for Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louise, that if he were the administrator of the Grace Hospital, the great institution in St. John's, Newfoundland, or the Burgeo Hospital, or the Burin Peninsula Hospital at Salt Pond or the hospital in Port-aux-Basques, or the hospital in Stephenville, or if he were a member of the board sitting around the table tiying to find the bucks, he would find there were fewer bucks as a result of the 1986 budget. I am talking about 1986, because this pillaging of health facilities has been going on by this government for five to six years.
Now, as we come just a little closer to accountability time when the bets are called in, when this government is going to be called to account, it is giving itself some legislation that can mean different things depending on what you want it to mean. For example, it could mean that the government might decide to get a bit generous during an election year. That would be a great surprise. The government might get generous, notwithstanding all the cut-backs of $800 million or so in respect of Newfoundland, and that is only one province. I could give
other figures of nearly $200 million in respect to Prince Edward Island; $1.3 billion over the 10-year period in respect of Nova Scotia, and so on.
MnLayton: Out of whose pocket? Against which debt?


Roger Simmons: The member has been there too long. He has got all the lines memorized. I am not sure he understands what they mean but he memorizes them well and he speaks them well.
Whose pocket? We know whose pocket: the pocket of the Canadian taxpayer, the same pocket out of which he and his buddies got the money to fly two cars down to Costa Rica, because there were no cars down there good enough to carry his buddy the Prime Minister. That is whose pocket we are talking about.
If he does not understand that particular example, if he does not recognize the incident I am talking about, I will remind him. His Prime Minister, the one and only boy from Baie Comeau, had to go to Costa Rica. There are no cars down there, you understand, good enough for him, so they flew two cars down. He knows this, does he?
Do not spoil my punch line. They flew two cars down.


Mr. Layton:: It had nothing to do with the RCMP and
its security.


Roger Simmons: No, it had nothing to do with anything. It had to do with taxpayers. A minute ago, the member wanted me to talk about taxpayers. His question was whose pocket? I am answering: the Canadian taxpayers' pocket, the same taxpayers' pocket that paid for two cars to be flown down. I know the official line. He has got the official line: "Security. Security. Security".
They flew the two cars down. These guys are looking after security. They are not just the ordinary taxpayers out there spending money right, left and centre. They know what they are up to. They get the cars down there as fast as they can. They are bullet proof cars-proper vehicles. They were so bright, those Keystone Kops, those spenders of taxpayers' money that could have been used under Established Programs Financing.
These Keystone Kops forgot to check one little tiny detail, just one detail-do not be too hard on them. They could not find any unleaded gas down there. They could not find any unleaded gas so the cars never got used.
March 9, 1992

They were paid for and my friend's question again is who paid for them? The Canadian taxpayer paid for them.


John F. Brewin: How do you like the $20 million on competitive as Canada promotion? Is that a good one?


Roger Simmons: I have friends in all parties who write speeches for me even as I talk, like my friend from Victoria in the wrong party but with a good idea, and I congratulate him. It gives me another marvellous example of how this government knows how not to spend money.
I digress and I do not want to try the patience of my good friend, the Speaker, too much. I was making the point that the people of my province, like the people of every other province, are being short changed very badly in terms of their access to health care. I made that point. I wanted to go on and give the other example of their access to post-secondary education.
I am sure you were all thrilled last week when you heard that budget. If ever there was a candy-coated budget, it was last week's. You can candy coat different kinds of things. People have been known to candy coat arsenic. You can candy coat anything you want. That does not change the flavour or the effect of what is under the candy. It was a candy-coated budget and for students at Canadian universities, once they got past the candy part, here is what they found.
The government had tampered further with post-secondary education. The government heretofore under the Canada Student Loan Program had allowed a six month period of grace, six months after the student finishes university, during which there is an interest holiday. There is no interest charged on the loan. They have to pay the loan, but they did not have to pay interest on that loan in respect to the first six months after the student finished university.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Will the hon. member allow the Speaker to make a ruling and then carry on with his speech? The hon. Speaker has a ruling to make for the member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley and then I will get back to the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: I say, first of all, to the hon. member for Burin-St. George's that I appreciate very much his
courtesy and the courtesy extended to me by the other members of the House.
Tb the hon. member, I will hear the argument.


Brian L. Gardiner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your brief time today to consider what I think is an important issue and to rise under Standing Order 52. It relates to the matters raised in the House today by members from all sides of the House. It relates to the decision on Friday that precipitated a decision from the commerce department in the United States regarding the very important debate over softwood lumber and our exports to the United States.
We have had a number of negative decisions on trade policy from Washington, D.C. They are certainly impairing our country's ability to trade with the United States. This decision in particular on softwood lumber tariff will have an impact on well over 300 forest communities throughout Canada.
It is a very important issue. It falls under the provisions of Standing Order 52 because of its importance. The dollar value alone relates to this issue, given the vast amount of lumber exports into the United States and the number of communities across Canada that are affected by this.
It is an important debate that this House must have, and I would certainly be prepared to assist in any arrangements that might allow for that debate so that all Canadians can know what the members of this House feel about this most important issue.


Mr. Speaker:: First of all I thank the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley for giving me notice in advance.
I should say that a number of members raised the matter today and there was a considerable exchange at Question Period on this very important matter.

March 9, 1992
Government Orders
I would say to the hon. member for Prince George- Bulkley Valley that while I am not disposed to move this afternoon on it, I will be watching the matter very closely. It may well be that hon. members will want to seek the Chair's advice and guidance tomorrow or the next day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of 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. Paproski):: The hon. member for Burin-St. George's had five minutes remaining in his debate, and because of his indulgence I will give him another 30 seconds.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, my good friend who has made a welcome appearance in the House from the good riding of Delta says that I forgot where I was.
I was explaining to his colleagues that in the latest budget, the whole question of Canada student loans was a bit candy coated. Underneath the candy, there were a couple of very stark realities. He will know them.
As a matter of fact, if he wants a little of my time, he might want to tell the House whether he explained those couple of wrinkles to his constituents in Delta.
First, until now the students at Canadian universities who had loans, once they came they had six months before the interest began to accumulate. With this budget, it accumulates the day they stop studying. Therefore, they pay another six months of interest. Did he explain that to his constituents?
Second, did he explain to them that the government wants to privatize student loans? Did he explain the reason? Did he explain that the reason the government
wants to private student loans is that it wants the banks to do its dirty work for it? It wants the private banks to hustle those students who, through no fault of their own, do not have jobs or income.
That is what it is all about. That is what is underneath the candy in that particular budget when it comes to student loans. This government's record in so far as post-secondary education and health care are concerned is absolutely abysmal. It is absolutely shocking. How it can now even have the face to bring another piece of legislation before this House, one wonders.
As the fishermen off the east coast of Canada are finding out, you cannot rely on this government in the crunch. You just cannot rely on this government. As the stores near the border are finding out, you cannot rely on this government in the crunch. The farmers are finding that you cannot rely on this government in the crunch. You just cannot rely on it.
A lot of people took the government's word on the free trade issue, and we see the sad results of that these days. We took their word on so many things. I heard the Prime Minister today and I would dearly like to take his word when he talks about foreign overfishing.


Dave Worthy: We can't believe your word when you talk. That's extreme talk.


Roger Simmons: The member from Chilcotin today talks about a Damascus road experience, talks about somebody seeing the light, in the last hour or two hours ago was up on his feet actually blasting who? The Americans.
I remember a time not so long ago when he was chairing a meeting of Canadian-American parliamentarians. He almost suppressed the subject that he addressed today. He would hardly let it be discussed, it was so foolish a subject. He did not see the need for it. He sees the need today. He had to get up and make a speech today to help save his hide back home, on the very issue that he tried to shove under the table not so very long ago.


Dave Worthy: You're despicable in your politics.


Roger Simmons: The member knows the meeting I am talking about. Now he says I am despicable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor. I cannot really hear him because there is too much action going across the floor. I would like to hear the hon. member's speech. The hon. member for Burin-St. George's has the floor.
March 9, 1992


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I did not want to upset my friend from Chilcotin. The truth does hurt. In case somebody did not understand the import of what I said, some months ago he was chairing a meeting and the subject-


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


Mr. Thompson:: Mr. Speaker, the member is clearly off the topic. We are debating Bill C-60. He does this quite frequently. We want to hear what he has to say in regard to Bill C-60 and we can debate that point. I think he has transcended the bounds of this debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think the hon. member knows relevancy and I know that he is coming right to the point. The hon. member for Burin-St. George's.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Chilcotin had asked me a question about whether my assessment on Bill C-60 could be trusted. I think these were his words. I wanted to illustrate my meaning to him by using a parallel example. I gave him an example that he was in the middle of, that on one occasion he chaired a meeting about a subject. Today he spoke on the subject. He has taken two opposite views on the issue. I thought I would put it back to him the saying about people who live in glass houses, Mr. Speaker. If trust is what he wants debated on the floor of the House this afternoon, we can give him some examples about who ought to be trusted on Bill C-60 or on any other subject.
I say to the gentleman from Carleton-Charlotte, these are my views on Bill C-60, my views on trust, my views on why we cannot trust this government on post-secondary education, on the fisheries jurisdiction, on the trade issue or on any other issue. Why does the government want us now to trust it on Bill C-60? I do not trust the government on this issue. I see more health care going down the drain. I see more post-secondary education going down the drain. I see some not well-off students being able to less afford post-secondary education as a result of the latest move by this government.


Gregory Francis Thompson: Mr. Speaker, in response to the member for Burin-St. George's, politicians are often accused of being actors, sometimes good actors and others bad. This was an
Government Orders
example of acting at its very best. The trouble is the hon. member got his figures wrong, as he always does. He wants to suggest and to use only the figures that he wants to use. The truth is that most of what he is saying is totally erroneous.
I guess if we want to go beyond calling the member an actor, I might suggest that he is a magician. He is confused in his role as a magician as well because usually a magician makes more with less, but he is taking more and turning it into less.
Since this government was elected there has been more money transferred to his province than in any other time in the history of this country. He knows that for a fact.
I want to step through some of those numbers. The annual rate of growth in major transfers to Newfoundland has been 5.5 per cent since 1984-85. He cannot dispute that because it is happening. This year the direct transfers to his province will exceed $1.4 billion. Do you know what that accounts for? It accounts for about 44 per cent of Newfoundland's total revenue, coming from the Government of Canada, from other taxpayers, to the Government of Newfoundland.
I do not think the member can argue convincingly on that number at all. I think he is going to have to get into some of those little magic numbers that he himself comes up with. Where he comes up with them I will never know. But again, he is very convincing in his delivery, there is no question about that. We do not question his delivery as a speaker but we do question the numbers he uses. Also, if we are looking at transfers to his province, they amount to about $2,400 per individual.
When we are talking about transfers at this level, government to government, it really does not measure the other support programs that go into his province, through the UIC act for example. If you measure that in total the figure goes far beyond $2,400. They tell me that on transfers to individual citizens directly from the Government of Canada, the figure is more in the $4,500 to $5,500 range. So that, coupled with transfers from the federal government to the provincial government to allow it to do the types of things it does in the delivery of services, there has been no government in the history of

Government Orders
this country that has done more for the province of Newfoundland than this government.
Those are the figures that he has to use when he stands on his feet. I think this maze of figures that he steps through and the confusing way in which he delivers them is not portraying an accurate picture at all.


Roger Simmons: Mr. Speaker, I used to be a teacher before I became an actor and I thank the gentleman. I say to the gentleman from Carleton-Charlotte that we learned to tailor the message to the audience so I will try it one more time for that particular audience. I will make it very simple.
What I said, and I apologize to him if it was confusing, was that in the 10-year period from fiscal 1986-87 to 1995-96, Newfoundland will be down by $845 million in payments for EPF, lower than it would have been if the government had not changed the act with the 1986 budget. That is what I said.
I then amended that with the $31 million that the government is putting back in this year. I later said that it is now of the order of $800 million or $820 million or something like that. I am sure he can do that bit of subtraction.
Now he says that the transfer payments represent 44 per cent of the budget. He is absolutely right on that. What he did not say is that it is down from 48 per cent. Before this government became involved it was 48 per cent of the provincial budget.
Per cents aside, you heard the key phrase: Newfoundland is getting from other taxpayers. Now let us listen to that phrase. Is the member telling us that the taxpayers in Newfoundland do not pay federal income taxes and all the other taxes? Does he not know that the Government of Canada pot is in respect of all the taxpayers in Canada and some of that 44 per cent is out of the pockets of Newfoundlanders? Of course it is. This suggestion that somehow the other nine are keeping us on pogey all the time, I resent that. It is the old welfare argument that says take it but be quiet about it.
Why are many of my fellow countrymen in Newfoundland on UI these days? Why are they out there? Because the government of which this member is a supporter has allowed the Spanish and the Portuguese to pillage the stocks. The overfishing started in the first fishing season after this government took office. There was no overfishing up to and including 1984. None, not one fish. Starting in 1985 the European Community took eight times their quota. In 1986 it took 12 times their quota.
The French had not overfished until 1984. In 1985 they took three times their quota, in 1986 they took three times their quota and the pillaging has gone on and not a peep, not a word from that crowd over there. Why are thousands of my fishermen in Burin-St. George's drawing UI? Because they cannot fish. Why? Because they are lazy? No, because that man over there and his clique have allowed the Spanish and Portuguese to pillage our way of life and our fish stocks. Therefore, they have to stay home, sit on the wharf instead of going out to fish, which is what they would like to do.


Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with considerable interest to what I thought was a report of the critic on the Liberal member's acting ability.
I was impressed with the hon. Conservative member's ability to extend for almost infinite time so little in a question. He must have taken lessons from the Prime Minister.
My question to the hon. member is simply this. Sometimes we talk about the impact of cutbacks on EPF and other transfer payments somewhat in the abstract. The hon. member has done a very good job of giving some concrete images to the policies of this government and how they have affected the fishers of Newfoundland.
I would be interested in having some specificity lent to the impact on post-secondary education in Newfoundland as a result of the cutbacks in the Established Programs Financing that this government has perpetrated since it came into office. Perhaps the hon. member could extend that to cover the whole of the $11 billion that have been cut since 1982-83.


Roger Simmons: I thank my friend from Windsor-St. Clair for the question about post-secondary education. I was just beginning to get into the mood of that subject when unfortunately my time ran out.
One of the amazing things about Newfoundland over the last two, three or four decades is the numbers of people as a percentage of total population and in absolute numbers that went to university. I remember when I went to Memorial University, the one university in Newfoundland, there were about 1,100 students there.
March 9, 1992

Now the total enrolment I would think is of the order of
12,000	or 13,000 plus, and many others in evening and part-time studies. Many thousands of people go to that university and get undergraduate degrees, graduate degrees, doctorate degrees in many disciplines.
Many of those people came from humble origins. By humble I mean economically not terribly prosperous. But they were able to go to university and get their education because of a number of programs, including the Canada Student Loan Program. They had come to rely on it as a stepping stone. If you check the rate of payback of Canada student loans in Newfoundland as opposed to other parts of Canada, you will find that there is no high delinquency rate. They are good payers of loans once they get the income with which to pay those loans.
The point I make in response to my friend from Windsor-St. Clair is that in the area of post-secondary education, nowhere is the curse of this government more apparent, more in evidence than it is in the way it has stunted opportunities for university education in Newfoundland.
Only this past weekend I was with a couple of people, would-be students, who told me that they are not able to go to university. One of the reasons they are not able is because this government, for all its tampering with Canada student loans, has not raised the floor. My friend from the Magdalen Islands will know this. It has not raised the base amount that a student may apply for since 1984.
Inflation in those eight years alone has done things to his students, his constituents. Why is he not lobbying for them? Why does he not beat some sense into the Prime Minister and tell him that eight years of inflation have eroded the buying power of those students who would like to go to university, but they have to do their borrowing on the basis of 1984 figures. That is shameful. He knows that and I am sure he will want to talk about it and dissociate himself from it when he gets up to speak.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: As a
previous speaker indicated, it must be of some embarrassment to the members on the other side that in Bill C-60 they have produced another opportunity to talk about what this government has done with respect to transfer payments to the provinces, in particular, those payments
Government Orders
that go to the provinces for the benefit of post-secondary education and medicare.
Basically, the bill could be described in some respects as housekeeping. It deals with the fact that it is now necessary to extend the present fiscal arrangements with respect to established programs funding, more specifically to provide for changes in the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act so that the present legislation will apply to 1994.
It will also provide for administrative arrangements that would allow the provincial governments to collect taxes on behalf of the federal government and for the federal government to collect taxes on behalf of the provincial governments and make provisions for taxpayers who have paid through one or the other to have those payments taken into account by those respective governments.
It also would provide that this present ceiling on the EPF payments would be based on the 1992-1993 fiscal year rather than the 1987-88 fiscal year.
Now, of course, one of the elements of this bill that may pass unnoticed is the fact that it is necessary to extend the present transfer payments for post-secondary education and health because of the fact that the government has failed to negotiate new arrangements under EPF.
This was something that was supposed to have been completed last year. It is an issue that has been the subject of debate in this House on numerous occasions since 1984. You will know, Mr. Speaker, that there was considerable concern about the erosion of contributions to the provinces as well as some concern about the relative responsibilities of the provincial governments and the federal government with respect to post-secondary education.
The issue is not drawn so sharply with respect to medicare, but we will come to that later.
The fact of the matter is there was a problem out there that we should identify with respect to the responsibility of the provinces. That is, there was concern that the provinces were not making their due contribution. We asked over and over again that there be, first of all, a real negotiation of EPF to provide for stipulated transfer payments for post-secondary education and that there

March 9, 1992
Government Orders
would be an identified contribution from the provincial level and that the level of contributions to post-secondary education would not continue to erode as it has been doing since the beginning of this decade.
I want to make clear that erosion is one that did not begin with this government. In fact it began with the changes made in the legislation by the previous government beginning in 1977. Most notably were the 6 and 5 cutbacks in 1982 and 1983 which cost a considerable amount of money to the system.
Looking at the $9 billion it was costing the system by the changes made by the present government and adding to that the $2 billion which was taken away from EPF in ' cutbacks by the Liberal government, there has been a net decrease of some $11 billion in the expected contributions for post-secondary education that we should have expected from this government. This has to be looked at in the context of what the government has identified as its prosperity agenda.
Mr. Speaker, I know that you will recall because I know you were as enthusiastic about that announcement then as you are now, that the federal government had promised that it would quadruple the number of trainees that were produced in this country so that at least we would meet the level of training in industry that is achieved in the United States, which falls considerably short of the levels achieved in Europe and more specifically in Germany.
It announced the rather ambitious goal of doubling the number of scientists, engineers and mathematicians. It promised that it would eliminate the 20 per cent functional illiteracy rate that we have in this country. It said, and we lauded this recommendation, that we would achieve a 90 per cent graduation rate from high schools.
Looking at this present budget and looking at this legislation we see and have seen that it is a continuation of a policy which has been completely contradictory to its promises.
We were ready to forgive this government for its failures up until the 1992-93 fiscal year if it had shown the slightest evidence that it was going to truly commit itself to those educational and training elements that were the bedrock we were told, or at least it was suggested to us, of the government's prosperity agenda.
New Democrats have considerable problems with some of the right-wing ideological pap that goes into the federal government's prosperity agenda. But we do understand that if we are going to have a value-added economy of the sort that is going to permit Canadians to go to work and which will create wealth, that wealth will only be generated on the basis that we create opportunities for all of our citizens through training and education, through the development of skills.
When we get right down to it, if any wealth is going to be created, it is created from the minds and the creativity and the capacity for innovation that Canadians have in great abundance if they are given the opportunity to do this.
Whether we are looking at EPF or whether we are looking at the over-all training budget, the government has cut $200 million from the training program under the Canadian Jobs Strategy. We have to understand that that relates to young people who are not working and who are largely not working because they do not have the skills to work.
It purports to be a government that understands the significance of training and education. Since it has been in office there has been a sharp erosion of the over-all expenditures by this government for training and education.
We find that there has been a decrease. The figures are right here. Since 1986-87 until 1991 the over-all increase in the cost of living has been 25.5 per cent, but we find that for education and training over-all government contributions have only risen 6.5 per cent. That is scandalous on the face of it.
What is more important is that it is tragic in its very fundamentals in what it is doing to our nation in its capacity to create the wealth that will allow our citizens to prosper.
This government has the notion that you have to somehow have the wealth and then you will have adequate social programs, when in fact if you do not have adequate social programs, you have not a chance in this world of creating wealth. The key social program in that context obviously is training and education.
March 9, 1992

The enrolment in post-secondary education in this country has risen 43 per cent, and I just mentioned that the expenditures on training and education have risen about 6.7 per cent.
It is a strange thing to look at the front page of The Globe and Mail and get this, it reads "Education Only For the Wealthy". Reading The Globe and Mail it might be thought to be positive advertisement. But even The Globe and Mail had to be concerned about what is happening to our post-secondary institutions. They are in dreadful shape.
I wish that my Liberal colleague from Newfoundland had pointed out that they have laid off in the major institution not tens but hundreds of staff. In some universities in this country tuition has risen up to 250 per cent.
To give some specificity to this, let me look at some other figures that I think I have available to me on my desk. In 1980-81, in Newfoundland, which is an appropriate example, tuition fees amounted to 10.2 per cent of general operating income at Memorial University. By
1988-89, and that does not include the budget years 1990-91, 1991-92, or 1992-1993, already by 1989 the portion cut of operating income at Memorial University met by tuition fees was 13 per cent. By God, it must be on its way to 16, 17,18 per cent, perhaps 20 per cent. I am sure if I had the figures before me that is what I would find.
In Nova Scotia it has risen from 14.7 to 21.6 per cent and in Ontario from 16.9 to 20.4 per cent. In Ontario a New Democratic government for heaven's sake has had to increase tuition because this government has deprived Ontario to an extent even greater than other provinces of the transfer of payments for post-secondary education and medicare.
Oh yes, it brings in a bill and does a little bit of housekeeping. But people understand that this is just part of a continuing action by this government with its hypocritical stance with respect to training and education. It continues to do one thing and say quite another.
Of course we are talking about medicare and we are talking about Established Programs Financing. I do not have to elaborate on what is happening to medicare in this country. Here we have in our nation the exemplary
Government Orders
example of what a nation should provide for its citizens with respect to health, with respect to accessibility, universality and affordability.
And it is because of this government that provinces such as Quebec, New Brunswick and Alberta are talking about user fees for medicare, talking about a system of two-tiered health in which the rich will be healthy because they can afford it and the poor will be increasingly unhealthy, mimicking the situation in the United States. There, only the rich can go into a hospital waiting room with impunity and hope to get a bed because they can afford it. Then one of, I suppose, the least controversial elements in this bill really does provide for the harmonization of the GST and the provincial sales tax. I do not want to engage at this stage of the game, because I have so little time to do so, in an appropriate criticism of the GST. The GST replaced the MST, the manufacturers' sales tax, which was described as a silent killer of jobs. One advantage of the GST is that it kills jobs and everybody knows it.
It kills jobs and everybody knows it. I hear a Conservative member over there quietly saying: "Ah ha".


An hon. member:: Nonsense.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Let me tell you, I hope that my province will not succumb to a transparent blackmail being perpetrated by this government to force my province to integrate its sales tax with this abominable federal sales tax which is killing jobs in Windsor at a rate that is absolutely scandalous.
There is no reason why this government could not have attacked the issue of cross-border shopping, which is a serious problem, in a creative way rather than trying to use a bludgeon of cross-border shopping to force the provinces to fit into this tax which has been the offspring of an ideology which has not been in the interests of this country and an ideology that will die a mortal death.
It will certainly die a death in the next election and will turn back the clock to a time in which Canadians could be confident that they had a government that had a commitment to fairness and social justice as this government does not.
Let us have this little housekeeping bill, but let us keep in mind that what this bill does is make it a little bit

March 9, 1992
Government Orders
easier for this government to perpetrate another sin on a long record of sins against the Canadian people.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague for a very fine speech and a most astute analysis of the situation in which the country finds itself.
I know that time is limited and one does not always hit every subject one might like. Something I would have liked to have heard the hon. member speak about is the matter of the killing of some of the committees, the Economic Council of Canada in the last budget, and I know something that was very near and dear to his heart and also right in line with education, and that is the Science Council of Canada.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, actually I understand the death of the Science Council. The Science Council was like a rabid dog biting at the ankles of this government and it had to be killed. The Science Council was an institution that had the capacity, the wherewithal, the knowledge and the research capacity to be objectively critical of this government and non-partisanly critical of this government and it was critical of this government.
As you know, the Science Council was about to do a number of studies. It would have demonstrated the inadequacy of this government's commitment to science, to training and to education.
The Economic Council did not criticize the government too much, but the government got the notion that it might and so it had to be killed too.
Also there is the Race Relations Foundation. That is the most peculiar one of all because it was killed along with the Court Challenges Program. This was done at a time when many people in this country are increasingly concerned about the rise of xenophobia and racism among those people who are looking for scapegoats that can be blamed for the actions of this government as they fear for their very livelihoods, their homes, their jobs and their capacity to raise their families.
One does not have to be a deeply suspicious person, but when I find out that representatives of this Conservative government that killed the Race Relations Institute, that killed the Court Challenges Program was also
the same government, the same party that refused in the constitutional report to support a commitment to equality for racial and ethnic minorities and with the collusion of the Liberals have seen that one-third of the population is not even included in a constitutional round that was supposed to be a people's round. Oh yes, there are some dear things in the budget that have been sacrificed.
With respect to the Science Council and the Economic Council and the foundation, if you add up that long list of cutbacks of various institutions that this government severed from the public area, it all adds up to $23 million. It spent that much sending people all across this country to speak to 30 or 40 people about this prosperity agenda that has been the subject of so much appropriate ridicule.


Diane Marleau: Mr. Speaker, this particular bill also has a section in it which deals with taxation matters. They are apparently designed to facilitate the collection of taxes by both federal and provincial governments.
I would like to ask the hon. member if he believes that it contains also certain elements that would facilitate the harmonization of the GST and the provincial sales tax? In view of the fact that many of these particular points were discussed during the meeting that was held with the provincial premiers, would he be aware whether Mr. Rae is deciding on whether to harmonize the GST with the PST in Ontario?


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, you will know that I did address the issue. I guess the member's question is: will the Premier of Ontario be forced to succumb to blackmail? It really comes down to something that simple. It is a question of whether it will be possible to negotiate a reasonable arrangement with the federal government for the collection of two different taxes, the GST and the PST, the provincial sales tax, without being forced into harmonization.
That question is something like: "If I am shot, will I fall down"? Specifically, in Mr. Rae's shoes I do not stand. But I hope that if they shoot him with the GST he will not fall down.


Mr. Darryl L. Gray (Bonaventure-Hes-de-la-Made-leine):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the former speakers as we discuss the equalization program.
I must confess that from the opposition benches, I guess
March 9, 1992

if I did understand one word, "harmony" does not belong in their vocabulary.
To set the record straight, perhaps I could read how equalization works.
Equalization payments are determined on the basis of a formula set out in federal legislation. First, the amount of revenue that each province could raise from a typical tax base, taking into account virtually all provincial and local potential sources of revenue from taxation is calculated.
Second, each province's overall per capita capacity to raise revenues from these sources is compared to that of five provinces making up a representative standard. This standard is currently equal to about $4,700 per capita.
I will not go any further. I listened with interest as my hon. colleague from Newfoundland made reference to the Magdalen Islands and the students from the Magdalen Islands. To be in opposition is one thing but to be realistic is another.
Of course, when we talk about our students, whether they come from Newfoundland or from the Magdalen Islands or the Gaspesie-

-or anywhere in Canada, Mr. Speaker, this is important, as the Prime Minister said so before in this House, because the taxpayers are always the same. Whether we are talking about municipal, provincial or federal taxes, the same person pays all three.

We must take that into consideration when we discuss and look at what has been proposed from now until March 31, 1994, as mentioned in the budget of the Minister of Finance.
Hollering from the opposite side, they say we have cut back. That is not true. We are jumping from 5.9 per cent in 1984-85 to 7.8 per cent in equalization payments. Being a former teacher of mathematics that represents an increase.
Equalization in 1984-85 was roughly $5,422 billion. These figures are available to all concerned. The figure proposed for 1992-93 is $8.56 billion. Which brings us to the point, has this government done enough? Of course, it is very difficult when you deal with personal and public finances. In order to spend and spend and spend with no limits, someone must take the heat.
At the same time, we talk about equalization payments, harmony, the GST and provincial sales tax. As members are aware, we are in the process now of
Government Orders
building a unified Canada and a Constitution that will make us stronger, not weaker. We talk about have-nots and haves. My friend from Newfoundland stated earlier that we are all part of this great country because the have-nots can benefit from the haves which has been the case in the past. I hope with all due sincerity this will continue in the future.
We talk about spending dollars and the same taxpayers' dollars but we must face reality, not only when we talk about equalization payments but when we talk about every ministership in our honourable cabinet. Whether it is us as the government of the day or another government, we cannot spend frivolously. We cannot over-bor-row.
Far be it for me to take the part of the opposition. If the Official Opposition had been in government perhaps our annual deficit today would be in excess of $100 billion with all the things they suggest we do.
But the taxpayer would be outraged. They would not like that. These things are very difficult. It is very easy for the people of Newfoundland, for the people from British Columbia or for the people from my constituency to criticize. We were elected in 1984 and again in 1988 to put some kind of sense into the spending of this government. It has not been easy.
I say that $5.4 billion to $8.5 billion is not a loss, it is an increase. Members opposite fail to mention at the same time that our inflation rate has dropped to approximately
1.6	per cent. We were criticized for our policies but that fiscal policy has benefited the provinces.
My colleague from Ontario mentioned that Mr. Rae will not bend down to harmonize-and far be it from us in the debate on this bill to get too involved in the Constitution and Canadian harmony-but I would say that when we harmonize, when we talk about the better spending of our taxpayers' dollars, be it municipal, be it provincial or be it federal, there can only be one winner and that is the taxpayer. The final winner is our great country of Canada.
They talk about how devastated they are. We are devastated because we cannot afford to spend any more money. We are looking forward to the day when we have our finances in order and we can go back to the university students and the provinces, regardless of whether they have a social agenda in which they want to make everybody equal. We want to put all Canadians to work. It is the wish, the desire, the aim, and the goal of

Government Orders
this government. That is our aim from this side of the floor and that will continue to be the fact.
In any provincial political agenda it may be the wish to say: "Take more from Ottawa, give it to the provinces, and let us look after it". This is why we have the two years till March 31, 1994 when our provincial ministers of finance, our Prime Minister of Canada and our premiers of the provinces can get together and look at the tax base and at all money spent being spent wisely and for the benefit of all Canadians, including those who pay their taxes.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of our caucus and constituents from York West to speak to Bill C-60. It talks about the equalization and transfer payments to the provinces, which essentially help them to look after their jurisdictions under the Constitution of our country on behalf of that same single taxpayer.
The debate today specifically touched on the whole question of transfer payments as they relate to education, post-secondary education and training. I think it would be highly valuable not only to look at Bill C-60 from a narrow perspective. We should in fact take a look at what the general government track record has been in terms of keeping up with its payments to the provinces.
If we look back a number of years, certainly last year with the introduction of the GST, inflation was not at 2 per cent, not at 3 per cent, not at 4 per cent, but was upward of 5 per cent. The transfer payments were much less than the growth of both the GNP and the rate of inflation. That was the case for a number of years consecutively.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of Industry, Science and Technology, and the Minister for International Trade talk about making Canadians and Canada competitive again and about a prosperity agenda. They talk about ridding our country of illiteracy. They talk about keeping Canada apace with a world that is certainly moving quickly and does not owe us a free lunch or dinner or breakfast.
What does that mean? It means that there is a gulf of difference between the rhetoric and the words put on paper that our Prime Minister tries to inspire the country
with at whatever stop or before whatever audience. It means that there is a gulf of difference between that and the substance or the fact that when it comes time to pay and give over transfer payments for post-secondary education it is not there.
We are unlike certain parts of western Europe where there is an equilibrium between the number of applicants applying for post-secondary education, largely university, and the number of people accepted. In large measure they are equal because a greater pool of Europeans go through college and through training apprenticeship programs for electricians and tool and die makers than in this country.
We have talked today about Canadians not being able to afford to go to university. The fact or the reality is that the universities and post-secondary institutions of our country cannot even afford to have the spaces. Never mind if people can afford it; they do not have the spaces to come close to responding to the demand of young people wishing to enter university. That is related directly to the budgets of those universities for expansion, for facility space, and for professors. That is also related in practical measure to the debate we are now having on the floor of the House of Commons.
We are saying quite simply that if the Government of Canada wishes to equip its young with an education to meet not only their aspirations but the aspirations of a country, if we are to train individual Canadians both young and old, those whose employment was terminated at age 50 because a plant closed, moved to Buffalo or it costs a peso to construct widgets in Mexico and ship them back for the same kind of profit, if it means that we are going to give those people a place to stand, then it means that the Government of Canada will have to match its words with dollars.
Unfortunately the dollars have not matched the flowery images of the rhetoric. A few minutes ago a member on the government side asked if Bill C-60 enables Canadians to trust this government with fiscal arrangements. I say no. We are two weeks after the presentation of a federal budget and I am asking if Canadians trust this government more to take care of and look after their interests on a fiscal budgetary playing field.
March 9, 1992

We had headlines in yesterday's papers, for instance, that seven out of ten Canadians, according to an inside Canada research study, not only said no to this Prime Minister, but seven out of ten Canadians said never again to this Prime Minister. That is the essence of the trustability.
If we look at the federal budget, how do we measure whether Canadians give a passing grade or whether Canadians have a sense of confidence or trust in this government? One measurement is if a unemployed person tuned in at 4.30 p.m. on February 25, that Tuesday afternoon, and got any more trust or hope from that budget in terms of putting him or her back to work. The answer was clearly no, because there was no stimulus aside from allowing RRSP contributions to be utilized in portion toward the purchase of homes. Aside from that measure there was no stimulus, no program, no concerted effort, no sensitivity, no recognition, no admission that 1.5 million fellow Canadian citizens do not have a place to go when the alarm clock wakes them up to start a brand new day. Clearly one measurement is if there was at least naive hope that somehow the Minister of Finance was going to give a sense of optimism to both the unemployed and the general economy. It was not to be, and this was from a government that promised jobs, jobs, jobs, a government that said that the free trade agreement was going to ensure prosperity.
Do we remember the letters during the 1988 campaign from chief executive officers across the country warning their workers that if we do not sign on their places of work would be in jeopardy? Those are the same jobs that are indeed in jeopardy, the same jobs that Canadians have lost.
Where are the transitional programs? Remember when we had a campaign on that. This Prime Minister responded to our leader of the time by saying that we will have the greatest transitional programs that the western world will have ever initiated.


Mr. Harb:: Where is it?


Sergio Marchi: My colleague from Ottawa Centre asks: "Where is it?" Canadians are asking themselves: "Where is it?"
Government Orders
They cannot have it both ways. They cannot propel the country into a free trade agreement where more of our sectors are hurting, where more of our people are getting belted, and then at the same time not even help with the realistic measures of transitional programs. It means they do not care about Canadians. It means they are not willing to take some of those moneys, $30 billion a year, that we pay for unemployed Canadians and for people on welfare. We tell Canadians we are going to pay them an average of $12,000 to collect unemployment. Then when these persons are finished unemployment benefits, they go to the government again and the government says: "Now we are going to pay you another $14,000 a year; go collect welfare".
Thirty billion dollars a year, is that a good expenditure to invest in human dignity and in productivity? Are we to accept that this government is always going to hide behind this thing called the debt. No one in this House is irresponsible. We all want to pay our way. We all carry debts. I mean I carry a debt. It is called a mortgage. The bank owns more of my house than I do. That does not preclude me within reason from making other sorts of expenditures either for need or for lifestyle.
In the same way, while the government has responsibilities to maintain and manage this debt situation, it also has to balance the human need of people who are not working, who are not living in dignity, with at the same time an expenditure of $30 billion. It would have paid to have used portions of that $30 billion expenditure to put Canadians back to work. However, as soon as we say this we are tagged as being irresponsible free loaders, money spenders and the like when in fact by putting Canadians back to work we would be giving them back their legitimate dignity. They would be working. They would be productive. They would be paying taxes. They would have a weekly income that supersedes what they were getting from welfare and unemployment. It would allow them to make a few purchases of commodities. Perhaps it would encourage the economy back on its feet again and the cycle would kick back and reduce that $30 billion a year payment for people to sit at home and watch soap operas. That is one of the measurements of a budget.
A member from the other side asked: "Why not trust this government?" It is two weeks after the federal budget was presented and unemployed Canadians are saying: "I still don't trust you".

March 9, 1992
Government Orders
What about taxation? Bill C-60 provides a general comprehensive framework between the federal and provincial governments with all sorts of taxation. This government, this Prime Minister and this Minister of Finance prided themselves in saying: "We have given you this year through the budget a tax break".
The Leader of the Official Opposition and the member from Windsor who is our finance critic analysed that and concluded that for a family earning on average between $15,000 and $20,000 the net reduction is $2 a year; for a family $30,000 to $35,000, a net reduction of $15. Do you know what Canadians are saying, Mr. Speaker? Canadians are saying: "Thank you very much, Mr. Government, but keep your $15".
It is just like the senior citizens whose pensions were increased by 75 cents a month. I have had senior citizens who have put 75 cents in an envelope postage-free, sent it to my office, and said: "Give it back to the government because we don't need 75 cents. If it is that poor it can keep it".
This is from a government that expects applause for a $15 reduction after 33 new tax increases since 1984 and is the architect of the GST. Even if we give the entire benefit of a doubt that the GST is a good tax, the timing could not have been worse. We have a government that is causing tax strangulation. There are people in all of our ridings, and we know this, who come to see us on Saturday mornings. They tell us that with a municipal tax on property that is going through the roof, particularly if you are a senior citizen on fixed income, the provincial, the federal, the GST, at the end of the month they get a feeling they are working more for the government than they are for themselves. At the end of the month, they are not putting anything away. At the end of the month, they cannot even meet the expenses incurred during that month.
We have people coming to all of our offices and showing us their expenses. At least, they showed some of their expenses to me. They say: "What do you suggest?" You try to help a senior citizen. Do you know what the answer from the federal government is? "Well, if you cannot afford your house, sell it." That is what it is telling them.
We have senior citizens in my riding and in ridings of my colleagues who have worked for their castle for years and years and years, Canadians of all walks of life, new
Canadians, old Canadians, Canadian born and immigrants who take pride in having built that home. A senior citizen who has raised a family, bought a home, paid it off, with their kids now off and doing their thing, has the Canadian government saying to them: "Well, if you cannot afford the increased property taxes, sell it". That is the biggest investment most Canadians make in their life. If they are reduced to selling that after paying the mortgage for some 30-odd years on 25 year amortization programs that they used to have, that they no longer have, what are we telling them?
I go back again to the question of the member on the government side. "Do you not trust us now in C-60 to take care of the over-all taxation situation?" From a practical view: why should they?
Thke a look at the whole question of family child benefits. There has been much to-do about this much heralded new program. If you are in the $30,000 to $40,000 bracket of income for a family, the increase for your child benefits are $4 more than they are under the current regime. Between 1986 and 1991, some $3.5 billion was removed by this government in the area of child benefits.
Then the government comes along and expects, once again, to be applauded. Then you have the minister of health who takes pride in getting up and being "the killer" of child care in this country. In my riding, and the riding of my hon. friends on this side of the House, when we go door-knocking during and before a campaign-it does not matter-often you see what? You see a six-year-old answering the door who is taking care of his two or three-year-old brother because both parents are forced to work. They cannot afford child care and therefore that is the situation.
Are we really equipping our nation? Are we really permitting the opportunity for men and women to work while at the same time allowing for quality care of our youth of tomorrow's future as the word and as the statement that is over-used goes? To my hon. friend who asked, "Don't you trust this government in Bill C-60 to look after the needs, whether it is children, whether it is on the taxation front, whether it is the unemployed, whether it is training or education?", the answer is no. It is not a no because we happen to be in the opposition and that is the thing to say when you are in the opposition. It is no on behalf of Canadians.
March 9, 1992

This is not only a question of passing the burden on to provincial governments. This is a question of passing on a burden to the country, a burden that it will be paying for years to come because as I said initially, the world does not owe us a free lunch. Other governments, whether in Europe or in the Asia Pacific, are not only meeting their words with money, but are beginning to certainly have a greater spread between their countries, their economies, their training, their apprenticeship programs and us. Europe 1992 has arrived. It is here. They are getting their act together. We still do not have free trade among our provinces. We have got to wake up. When I say "we", I mean our country. I mean this Parliament that speaks on behalf of the country, at least as it speaks today and hopefully in the future.
If we truly want to equip our youth with the best education, if we truly wish to equip Canadian citizens with training and apprenticeship programs, then why over the last number of years have these transfer payments been far under the rate of inflation or the growth of our GNP? Why? The question will come back to haunt us.
This government is always looking back and always taking things out of 1981 and 1972 and 1953. The challenge for this government today is not to be an erroneous historian. The challenge for this government is to have a breath of vision for things to come. On that score the budget was a failure and Bill C-60 is a failure.


Mr. Rene Soetens (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to comment because I am rather displeased with what I heard.
I heard the comment that the hon. member does not want us to refer back to 1981,1982 or 1983, so I will not. I will respect that wish.
He did refer back, of course, to our period in government, starting in 1984. He talked about the fact that we have been cutting transfer payments and we have not kept pace with the rate of inflation and so on.
The member is from Ontario. I believe his riding is York West. I think I have the name of the riding correct. It is close, anyway. I represent a riding in Ontario as well, not too far removed from his.
I note, based on information that is readily available, that the Government of Canada transferred to the
Government Orders
province of Ontario in the period between 1984 and 1991-92 some $9.9 billion, which over that period of time was a 62 per cent increase in funding, well in excess of the rate of inflation.
I would caution the member that when all of that increase took place those problems he has referenced with regard to training and education programs were in fact there and were not being addressed by all the money being thrown at them.
I would like to comment a little further. He stated that our budget had no recognition for those who are unemployed, the problems of the economy, no stimulus, no incentive. I think he used no plus some other adjective about eight or ten times about how this budget was a disaster.
I rise to say that I am sorry if he did not relate to his constituents how this budget was good for his riding, good for my riding and good for all those ridings in Ontario where there is extensive manufacturing. In the manufacturing sector we have improved the capital cost allowance. That is good for investment. That is good for job creation. We have reduced the withholding tax on manufacturers' dividends. That is positive for manufacturing. We have also cut the income tax rate for manufacturers.
I do not know if General Motors is very big in his riding but out my way General Motors has a significant employee base, along with Chrysler and many multinational manufacturing companies. We have just cut the income tax rate. That is good for job creation by those companies.
We have developed a small business financing bond, a venture capital fund. We have enlarged the small business development loan. All of those things are good for Ontario.
I am sorry that the member decided that he would ignore all of those good things for Ontario in his comments about our budget.
Finally, he talked about training and education. We have allotted some $3.4 billion in federal funding toward training and retraining programs for the work force.
I say to the member, I do not want to look back because I respect his comment. What I would like him to do is look forward. There is the federal $3.4 billion going directly into training. He does not want us to mortgage the future. He does not want us to be irresponsible and

March 9, 1992
Government Orders
spend what we do not have, but he does feel we should put more money into the system.
If $3.4 billion is not enough, would the member mind telling me just how much more he thinks the Government of Canada should borrow in order to increase that training budget from $3.4 billion to whatever he thinks it ought to be.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, if you take the comments of my hon. friend, you would think that people in Ontario are dancing in the streets. You would think that after the presentation of the federal budget that they would be rejoicing, that they would be going to the constituency offices of the government members and saying "Thank you so much", but I try to remind the member of Parliament that the statistics speak for themselves better than I can ever articulate the argument: 1.5 million unemployed, another million or so on welfare. In the city of Toronto there are over 10 per cent unemployed. He talks about the bonanza that this budget is going to bring for the manufacturing sectors in Ontario. I have large industrial parks in my riding of York West. Unfortunately, many of those are gone, many of those are hurting and many of those are beyond salvaging, thanks to the measure here.
We also have to keep in mind that the other challenge of that budget was to inspire and induce consumer confidence so that people would be confident in spending to buy the products that our business people and our entrepreneurs wish to create and fabricate.
If you will remember, the government also talked about increasing the small business loans to $200,000. Our critic for entrepreneurship and tourism pointed out in the debate in this House of Commons that many business people cannot even get a $100,000 loan from their banks. The banks are not lending those kinds of money. Yet the government comes along and says: "Hey, we are going to increase the ceiling from $100,000 to $200,000", knowing full well that while it might be good cosmetic public relations, it does not do one iota for the individual who is turned down both by the chartered banks, the top six, and then by FBDB and then comes to us and says: "Now where do I go?". Are we going to tell them: "Well look, the ceiling has been increased to
$200,000. Go back to your bank", when they refuse them a loan of $100,000 or less?
What I am asking the hon. member to do is to face the realistic statistics that speak volumes about the health of our economy, about people who find themselves outside of our economy, an economy that is not working for them, a consumer confidence that is not going to inspire any kind of recovery. Therefore, there is the onus on a national government, on behalf of its country and citizenry, to inspire and induce that confidence if it is not going to come from its population.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, just a comment, if I could, because we are talking about the situation in Ontario. It is a situation which you would believe from the one side of the House, the government side of the House, is magnificent and which you would believe from the Liberal side of this debate is deplorable. I think that it is important for some facts to be put before the House and put before the country.
One of the facts which is most crucial to the reality which exists in the province of Ontario at the moment, despite the money which my Conservative friend referred to as having been transferred by the federal government to the province of Ontario, in fact in this most recent fiscal year the amount of money which was cut back, which had been promised to the province of Ontario under the transfers that were supposed to take place under the Canada Assistance Program, amounted to $1.8 billion.
No province anywhere in the country could survive that kind of onslaught. The province of Ontario has been faced with government policy on the Conservative side. I quote from the most recent labour force statistics which just came out this past Friday which show that "full-time employment across this country under this Conservative government went down by 73,000 in this past year, manufacturing employment went down by 76,000 in this past year".
That is what we have had as a record from this government. It seems to me that with a record like that, if I were the member from Ontario on the Conservative side, I would not get up and start asking questions and making comments. I would sit in the back row and hang
March 9, 1992

my head in shame and be pleased that nobody noticed that the member in question is a member of the Conservative Party.
I hope my friend from the Liberal Party would agree with me about this kind of boasting of what Ontario has received. In fact, Ontario has been hit so hard by this government. People across Ontario have been damaged so badly by the free trade deal, by the GST, by the cutbacks which have hit the Ontario budget.
Surely, it seems to me to be mistaken for this member from the Conservative side to get up and suggest that somehow manufacturing has been helped by these extra tax handouts that have been given.


Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, the other fact and the other great variable of this equation awaits us in a number of weeks when the hon. member's friends in Ontario present their budget. We have had bad federal policy aggravated at the provincial level by a government that seems to be anti-business. If that bill goes throught, it will be passing labour laws and regulations found in no international jurisdiction. It is a question of not aggravating an already bad situation.
I implore the Premier of Ontario certainly to offer some light and some hope in a number of weeks when the government brings down its Ontario budget.


Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, as I listened to this debate in the last few moments I have become more suspicious of what is intended here than I was before I came in here.
I rise today as a representative of a constituency in a province that out of necessity has been a recipient of equalization and transfer payments for a great many years.
I am sure I speak for all residents of that province when I say that this is not the way we like to have it, but this is the way that it has been. We would rather be in a financial situation where we are on the other end and contributing to the equalization rather than on the receiving end. Unfortunately, at least for the short-term future, it would appear that we will continue to be on this end. As for legislation which affects this, it is of great interest to me and to members of my province.
The whole question of transfer payments and equalization goes to the very heart of being a Canadian. In
Government Orders
these times of far-reaching talks on national unity, we must always remember that this country and its various parts must receive the same level of services from its governments. We cannot allow our dedication to deficit fighting create two or more different classes of Canadians.
As residents of this country we are entitled to equal services wherever we live. This is something which we can never allow to slip away. Residents of Prince Edward Island, Atlantic Canada, western Canada, northern Canada and central Canada are all entitled to the same level of services.
I fear that over the past years we have seen some slippage in these principles. The provinces in my part of the country are faced with mounting deficits because of cuts to payments they receive from the federal government.
When the ministers of finance met in January they announced a minor increase in transfer payments. That was small comfort to those provinces that had large pieces of their budgets taken away earlier. I again urge the government not to fight the deficit on the backs of the poorest people in the poorest provinces of our country.
Last week when we were in our constituencies I had the opportunity to speak to students in junior and senior high schools about staying in school. I took this proposition to them. I think I was successful in convincing some who had been thinking about leaving this year in the senior high school to go out into the workforce that they would be better off probably to stay in school for another term. The question that was most often asked of me by them was: "If we are going on to post-secondary education, how are we going to afford it?"
This is a very serious question across the country. The less money going to the provinces for post-secondary education, students are forced to pay higher tuition fees. Of course, when you add that to the fact that they are out there competing with so many people looking for summer jobs, jobs that are not there, this almost says to these students what I fear is coming, that if you do not belong to the rich class, you are not going to be able to go to university.

March 9, 1992
Government Orders
I hope that I will not live to see that day return to this country. We have a great young population out there. As I told them that day, they are the people who will be running this country in the future. I am sure and I hope that they do a much better job of it than is being done at the present time.
There are a couple of more specific issues here that I would like to speak on.
The plan of the government is to extend these equalization and transfer payments systems for another two years rather than concluding with another five year agreement.
We all know that this government will be forced by law within the next 18 months to go to the electorate. I have a fear that by simply extending the current agreements it is only buying time, trying to get by the next election before some more Draconian measures will be brought in to deal with the provinces.
I hate to see this idea of letting us wait until after the election. When I hear governments saying, "Have we got a deal for you" I begin to get suspicious. If after the election, if by some quirk of fate, that this government happens to be successful, I fear that it will continue the program of dismantling the structures which have made Canada what it is today.
There is a change also proposed in the base year of the payments. This could be another way to allow the government more manoeuvrability in an election year.
Another issue in the proposed legislation is that the government is still trying to coerce the provinces into harmonizing the goods and services tax with the provincial sales tax thereby broadening the tax base for Canadians.
With the generous return of $2 to taxpayers in the recent federal budget, I do not feel that many taxpayers across the country would be enthused by the prospect of harmonization of the provincial tax with the favourite tax of this government, the GST.
All in all I fear that this legislation signals yet another step in the move to change Canada away from a caring, concerned country where the strong look after and assist the weak to one where the government moves its responsibilities to another jurisdiction.
I fear this because we get into the other area of funding for medical services. This is one that has been talked about much in the last number of months. Many speakers have spoken on it.
Many people in the smaller provinces are scared of what is going to happen if the transfers going to the provinces continue to drop. Certainly, we are then going to be into a situation of different levels of medical services across the country.
When the constitutional committee was in Charlottetown during the first meeting it had as it started its journey across the country the premier of my province said that he would not want to see a checker-board type of medical services in this country. I am certain that nobody else wants to see that happen in this great country of ours.
I plead with the government that it not try to move this down the road for its own means, that it will be serious and that it will make sure that the transfers and the equalization payments are maintained and increased in this country. There are still many jurisdictions out there that are going to need the help of the central government and the other more affluent provinces for a long time to come.
I urge this government to be prepared to continue this, to improve it, not to stop it in the two years down the road and not to dismantle it.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague from Hillsborough. I share his view when he stated that this bill really deals with the very heart of what being a Canadian is.
He talked about the fact that his province, Prince Edward Island, is a province that is a recipient of funding from the national government. There are times when obviously the province of P.E.I. does not generate the wealth that some of the other provinces have.
I would like to say to my colleague that coming from Ontario, most of the people in Ontario, in fact a large majority of them have absolutely no difficulty in sharing the resources and the wealth creation mechanisms that are in the province of Ontario with all regions of the country.
What I am hearing time and time again is that the people of Ontario want a strong national government. They want the standards in medical care and in education in Prince Edward Island to be the same standards
March 9, 1992

that we have in the province of Ontario. They want these national standards.
As the member for Hillsborough said, they want to make sure that this government is equipped to monitor and to maintain those standards in all provinces.
Does he not believe that the direction we are heading in is going to lead to us as national legislators to having a much more difficult time in meeting those national standards?


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his comments and his question. What I have said here today and what I feel each time I rise in this House to speak on topics regarding budgetary matters, equalization payments, is that I am afraid we are headed in the direction that the country you and I grew up in is changing dramatically. I mentioned this in my speech. I am terrified that we are going to a more selfish type of government in which the rich are getting richer but the poor are not being looked after by the government the way that I knew it and that you knew it.
I see this happening and it is something that has happened over the last number of years. It makes me very sad to see this happening, not just because I come from one of the financially poorer parts of the country, but because Canadians-as you said, people in Ontario, people in Quebec, people in other parts of the country- believe that we should share this way, the way we have been sharing certainly for the last 50 years.
I am sure that if a poll were taken today it would show that. I would urge the government opposite not to go off on that route it seems to be taking, on which it is going to dismantle all of the things that I stand for and that I am sure many people in this House stand for.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, some might have believed the hype put out by the government on this bill which referred to it primarily as "housekeeping". That is the way I took it at first. It seemed as though it was going to be a rather humdrum affair, that there really was not all that much to talk about. I was certainly drawn back to reality when the minister, giving his opening speech on the bill this morning, started bragging about all the transfer pay-
Government Orders
ments that had gone from the federal government to the provinces.
I am from Saskatchewan and when I see what has happened to the province of Saskatchewan, not only by the Conservative government in Ottawa over the last few years, but also the Conservative government in power in Saskatchewan over the last 10 years, I can tell you that it certainly got my attention when it was talking about all this money and implying thereby that somehow this had imposed prosperity, not only on Saskatchewan but by implication, from what the minister said, on the nation as well.
It does not take a lot of imagination, study or observation to realize that what the minister was really doing was sounding, in most unequivocal terms, the failure of the very system which he was purporting to uphold.
In Canada, which most of us would acknowledge is potentially one of the richest countries in the world, for the minister to be speaking on this bill and bragging about how the increases to the provinces had gone up many-fold over the last number of years is really an indication of the failure of the system. I say a failure of the system because I would suspect that had we not had a failure of the system then most likely the provinces and the regions would have received less money.
Less money because the system, the economic system we have in place in the country, the economic leadership provided by the federal government, would have lead in truth to a prosperity in the regions. The opposite has been the case.
I know that there are times, certainly in our part of the country, when the economic situation is going to deteriorate somewhat. There are also instances in other parts of the country such as the fishery when you get a severely cold winter and the fish, in order to escape the more frigid waters, go elsewhere and are more difficult to catch. Therefore there is a failure in the fishery.
I do not want to leave the impression that I am not aware of what has happened under the aegis of this government. I am very well aware that along with all the government's other failed programs, its failure to sup-

Government Orders
port the fishery, its failure to husband the fishery, has led to economic disaster in the maritimes.
In this federal system of ours, often referred to as a co-operative federalism, we have agreed in our past history that there would be equalization payments to the regions or to the provinces in case of an economic decline. That makes very good sense and I will use Saskatchewan as an example because we are a province in transition and have been for quite some time. There are fewer people on the land now than there were a decade or several decades ago because of the mechanization of the agriculture industry. What this has meant is that many people have had to leave Saskatchewan.
I might add that since this government came to power in Ottawa, and we had a government with a similar philosophy in Saskatchewan, people have been leaving in far greater numbers because of the devastation which its policies have caused to the agricultural community.
The point is that when these people leave they are quite often highly educated people; not always in the universities but many of them with post-secondary education and skills who have gone and helped other parts of the country enormously in their development, whether it be academically through the university trained people or whether it be industrially through the skills which they have picked up in our technical institutes.
There we have the obvious reason why there has to be some kind of a transfer of funds from the federal government for post-secondary education. Transfer funds coupled with the transfer funds through the extended payment financing, the EPF, also include medicare, which over the years, the later part of the 1970s, includes the previous Liberal government under which the funding mechanism for post-secondary education and medicare was changed from specific tied funds to block funding.
We certainly lost a lot of the control which we otherwise would have had. The federal government lost a lot of control which otherwise it would have had for the financing of these programs.
The funding has gone down enormously. I know my time is limited. I will zero in primarily on education.
The university has had to become, as it was described a week or so ago at a conference, a business visage, more
business-like. I would suggest that if we are going to insist that the universities become more business-like and if they take on the business pattern that this present government has adopted, not only is the economy of the nation obviously in danger, as has been evidenced, but also the educational system will be as devastated as the national economy has been.
What it has meant for the young people of Saskatchewan is that the university was forced to cut back on the number of professors and other services which it had available. In order to accommodate the decreased capacity of the university to supply services in the province, it raised the entrance requirements and also the tuition fees. You have the double whammy of it being more costly for the young people of Saskatchewan to attend university and you have also made it more difficult for many of them to get into university.
If you can imagine, we have a situation in the province now in which in order to get into some of the colleges in the University of Saskatchewan, the students have to have averages sometimes well over the mid-80s. In some cases, I have heard students have to have averages over 90.
There is no one here who, at least on the surface of it, would not say that they certainly value education. If we are talking in terms of people having to have over a 90 per cent average in order to get into university, we are talking in the realm of absolute stupidity. I remember when I was getting out of high school, the average, I believe, for university entrance was somewhere around 65 or 70 per cent. I would suggest Saskatchewan is a very good example of very well educated people having gone into the universities with those kinds of entrance requirements and having gone on to serve not only the province of Saskatchewan and the country of Canada, but the world, very well with averages that were not anywhere near that high.
I think we have to be careful here. I very nearly said cuts. The fact of the matter is that on the surface of it the number of dollars transferred to Saskatchewan from the federal government has not gone down, it has not been cut. What has happened is that the funds transferred to the province of Saskatchewan for post-secondary education and medicare have not kept up with inflation, which in the reality of the student going to university might as well be a cut because it affects them just as surely as if
March 9, 1992

the government had made the enormous slashes to the funds of the university.
I see my time is almost up and there are so many other things we could talk about. We could certainly talk about the budget for a long time as well. The member from Ontario was bragging about how this budget was so good for business. All these cuts were going to turn, not only Ontario, but the nation into a nation of productive and efficient workers.
Since this nation began, that is the philosophy we have had. We have been giving money away hand and fist to corporations and companies and what have we got? We have got a country that is bankrupt. Four hundred billion is a lot of money. That has been the problem. We have been giving money away to these financiers and it has not helped us a bit. There was a line in an editorial in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix just at the time when someone was suggesting what we ought to do is cut back on the unemployment funds to people. The question asked in the editorial was: Do you really think that putting plenty into the hands of the gentry is going to improve the financial and economic situation in this country? The answer, of course, is no. The failure of this nation and the failure of the economic leaders of this government have been that we have been giving too much money to the corporations. We have been giving too much money to the financiers. What they have done is taken it and run.
I would suggest that when money is put into the hands of the small business people they do not run across the border. I suppose they could, but they do not want to. They want to stay in the communities and they want to develop the jobs there. Certainly the evidence is that small business people do that. I suggest that the time for putting plenty into the hands of the gentry has long since past. I only wish that this government would wake up to the fact that this is the latter part of the 20th century and realize that it does not work. It has not worked in any of our past history. It certainly did not work in the 1930s and it is not working now.
Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member has three minutes left.
Government Orders


Ron Fisher: Oh, three minutes. Okay, that is wonderful. I just have time to relate a joke.
I studied theology at one time in the United Church. There was a joke among the theologians at the time about this United Church minister who went down to Vegas. Now United Church ministers and United Church people in general are not gamblers, but he is down there and he is sure that none of his parishioners are around.
He says: "Well, by golly I am going to gamble just once." So he decides he is going to gamble on a horse race and he figures that the best thing to do is go around the stables. He has heard peripherally that is what you do and you can maybe get some inside dope.
So help me, he sees a priest and the priest is paying quite close attention to one of the horses that is in the race. He says to himself: "Ah ha, that is just the kind of inside information I need." So he bets on the horse and it comes in last.
He figured that it served him right because he should not have been gambling in the first place. By chance he ran into this priest a little while later and related to him what he had done. The priest just laughed. He says: "That is the trouble with you United Church ministers, you do not know the difference between the blessing and the last rites."
Mr. Speaker, I would suggest to you that this government does not know when it ought to be administered the last rites.


René John Soetens: Mr. Speaker, I thought I would respond on two points.
Obviously there was some comment made with regard to my comments about the items in this budget that are good for Ontario. I do not apologize for those comments at all.
Suffice to say that some of the items in the budget have recognized some of the comments not only from members opposite but from an extensive public community about the problems of manufacturing in Ontario. I am pleased to see that the government, through the budget announcements, has recognized that there are some problems and we have acted in our jurisdiction, where we can, to try to resolve some of them.
The other point I would like to raise is the issue of transfers to the province of Saskatchewan. The member who has just spoken clearly stated that our transfers to the province of Saskatchewan have not kept pace with

March 9, 1992
Government Orders
the rate of inflation. In the period from 1984-85 to the present, transfers to the province of Saskatchewan have grown 89 per cent. That equates to an average annual growth rate of 8.3 per cent, which I would suggest, if the member goes back and looks at the statistics, is probably about twice the rate of inflation over that same period of time. The hon. member says we have not kept pace with the rate of inflation. Was he suggesting that we were transferring less than the rate of inflation or more than the rate of inflation? The facts show that we have transferred to the province of Saskatchewan, transfers that were almost double the rate of inflation. Is that what he was referring to? Is he not familiar with the exact numbers? In 1984 it was $727 million; in 1992-93 it is proposed to be $1,374 billion, 89 per cent more. I would like your comments on that.


Ron Fisher: Mr. Speaker, as I said, there are times when untoward circumstances happen in the regions. The most untoward circumstance that happened to the province of Saskatchewan was that it elected a PC government in 1982.
Prior to 1982 the province of Saskatchewan was very nearly a have province, which was quite an accomplishment for that region of the country. Over the years when the CCF first came in and then in 1971 when the Allan Blakeney government came in, the province prospered and the transfer payments going to the province really did decline.
As I said, it is nothing to brag about that we transfer all this money to our province. We should keep in mind that a lot of this money has come to the federal government from the province anyway. The province of Ontario supplies the federal government with 45 per cent of its tax money. A lot of the money belongs to the people anyway.
I know there has been a lot of money going to agriculture in Saskatchewan but the federal government, whether it is the final payment from the Wheat Board or payment under grain stabilization or whatever, fails to take into account that there is a goodly portion of that money that belongs to the people who have paid for insurance programs and so on. It really is very galling that the federal government takes so much credit for it.
While we are speaking of agriculture and support, I suppose we could also talk in terms of lack of support. It is amazing that the last budget had no reference at all to agriculture. That is rather strange because agriculture is certainly in the forefront of the minds of a good many Canadians, not just farmers right now. Of course we have the situation where the marketing boards are in so much danger and talks are going on concerning the General Agreement on Thrifts and Trade.
I was talking to a member of the National Farmers' Union the other day and he told me how in the early days of this present round of the General Agreement on Thrifts and Trade, this government actually had committed Canada to a tariffication of those agricultural products and the flim-flam we have seen lately and the tremendous support it ostensibly has for marketing boards is just that, flim-flam.
Mr. Francis G. LeBIanc (Cape Breton Highlands-
Canso): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a few words on this legislation which is an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act and to really speak to the legislation this bill is designed to amend.
The equalization payment system and the federal-provincial transfer payment system that is described in this legislation is really, as the minister in introducing the legislation remarked earlier today, the cornerstone of the system of fiscal federalism in Canada and a very key element of what it means fiscally to be a Canadian.
The equalization payments system which has been developed over the last 30 odd years under both Liberal and Conservative governments is really an important aspect of what ties this country together. It allows those people living in provinces and in regions which do not have the fiscal capacity of those living in wealthier regions to be able to have the same level of public services as other provinces and regions that have a larger income base. They may have this base through natural resource endowments or sources of income. In that way they allow Canadians wherever they live to be able to have the same level of services without having to pay extraordinary levels of provincial and federal taxes.
March 9, 1992

That is really what the federal equalization payment system and the system of transfers for post-secondary education and health are all about. They are a very complex and a very important system of transfers and of government expenditures which have been developed over the years and of which all Canadians have a justifiable right to be proud.
If we look at the equalization payments formula, we will see that it is a marvel tying all of the sources of public revenue, the 37 or so provincial tax forms across the country together, and correcting the inadequacies in each of those tax forms in each of the provinces where they exist in order to make Canadians, for example living in Nova Scotia, able to aspire to the same level of public services as Canadians living in Ontario without having to move.
It really is a very remarkable and uniquely Canadian system that we have here and which we in Canada have a right to be proud of and to want to preserve as our government sought to do by enshrining the principle of equalization as item number 36 in the 1982 Constitution.
The minister was right in describing this as a cornerstone of the federal fiscal system in Canada. The legislation that is before us today makes what are somewhat minor amendments to this system, extending the legislation for two years and making limited changes that will not bind this country for the same number of years that it normally does, which is five years, by only extending the legislation to two.
Nevertheless, the importance of this legislation, the fact that over $22 billion in funds were transferred to provinces and territories last year through this system and more than $8 billion were transferred under the equalization payments program alone, means that parliamentarians ought to be concerned and ought to have the time in this House and through the parliamentary committees to really examine closely what is being done and what is being transferred through this system.
It is unfortunate that we are receiving this almost at the end of the period when those arrangements are expiring. The current equalization payments will expire at the end of March. Here it is March 9 and we are only now receiving the government's plan for extending the equalization payments.
Government Orders
My first point is that I would have asked that the minister give us more time as parliamentarians to understand the implications of what is being proposed in this bill even though it is not radically transforming the bill, but it is making certain significant changes to it. That is my first point.
The next point which I would like to make has to do with the minister's remarks that he has, in fact, consulted for over 20 months with his provincial counterparts. He reports today that they are very happy with the results of the consultation and with the improvements to the tax collection agreements and to the equalization payments that have been proposed in this legislation.
That may well be the case. Perhaps we should be rejoicing the fact that the Minister of Finance was able to achieve this degree of harmony, given the fact that more than $600 million will be transferred to the provincial treasuries as a result of this legislation. I would not be surprised that the ministers of finance of the respective provincial governments would be happy with that arrangement.
I do not consider that a reason to be assured that the provincial governments are satisfied with these consultations because for many months Canadians have been very concerned about the erosion of the role of the federal government, the powers of the federal government and the abilities of the federal government to maintain a strong presence across Canada.
That was expressed time and time again throughout the debates of the special joint committee on the Constitution as one of the reasons Canadians are urging this government not to allow the federal powers to be weakened as they very much have been weakened and given away under this administration to the provinces and indeed to other countries, notably the United States.
I think we should be very concerned about that. I think we should be very concerned that the wholesale transfer of spending authority to provincial governments should not be given unequivocally and unconditionally. The federal government should maintain its abilities to act in the interests of all Canadians.
While it may be a good thing that the provincial ministers of finance were happy with the arrangements that go into this legislation, I have not had a chance to look at it in great detail, but I do not take that as any reason to be comforted as the minister would like to have me and other members of this House believe.

March 9, 1992
Government Orders
We should be looking at this very carefully for precisely that reason, because this government has been all too prone to giving away the store to provincial governments with the result that we are losing as a federal government and as a federal Parliament the ability to make laws for the benefit of all Canadians.
One of the items that occurred and which is of particular concern to me was a topic of debate through the activities of the joint committee on the Constitution.
It had to do with regional development. Regional development is one aspect and one reason the federal equalization payments exist. The federal equalization payments exist to help those provinces which are regionally disadvantaged to provide public services to attract investment, to attract industry and to enable their populations to have the base of income and of public services to create the wealth and employment that they need in order to reduce the disparities which still persist in this country.
One of the things that worries me in the document of the joint committee is that regional development, according to the majority report, would be transferred to provincial governments. The federal government would in fact not have the authority that it ought to have under the Constitution and that it rightly should have as a national government to promote the interests of all Canadians in particular matters of regional development, those it ought to have under the Constitution.
As a national government it rightly should have to promote the interests of all Canadians in particular matters of regional development, those Canadians who live in disadvantaged or less favourable economic regions of this country. Those situations change over time and the factors influencing them change over time.
In Atlantic Canada, we have persistently suffered as a result of living in a part of the country that has not had the wealth base of the richer provinces such as Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta.
As a result, we have constantly had to endure receiving higher unemployment insurance payments and transfer payments while we attempt to restructure our economies and to build a base that we can use to be actual contributors to the federal government and to other Canadians in the form of equalization payments.
We need in Atlantic Canada more than anywhere else a strong central government that has the ability and the power to act in terms of regional development and in those areas of competency that impact on regional development, impact on the location of economic activity in this country. Then our natural weakness vis-a-vis the rest of the country can be counterbalanced by that strong central government.
I am glad in a way that this legislation which has been introduced today only extends the current arrangements and those arrangements which have been negotiated by the Minister of Finance with the provincial governments for another two years.
Hopefully by that time we will have a Liberal government in power which will be in a position to redress the dreadful slide which has occurred over the last eight years in terms of the powers and the abilities of the federal government to act for all Canadians.
In having a government with the will to do so and the will to act in favour of the more disadvantaged regions of this country, we will be able to enable the national government to finally act for all Canadians powerfully and strongly.
Our system of equalization transfers will reflect that. We will not be shy about affirming that responsibility which exists in the Constitution and which needs to be reinforced and backed up by a federal government with the commitment and resources with which to do that.
That is my main point about this legislation. I have not had a chance to look at it in detail, to look at the arrangements that are being made in terms of harmonization of tax systems with the provinces.
I know that the government would like to boast about the fact that the GST will be harmonized with the provinces. That is not something that the federal government should be boasting about. It should be ashamed that it has the GST because the GST has caused so much havoc and so much destruction in the Canadian economy across the country.

m
March 9, 1992

That is partly because it was not harmonized to begin with, but mostly because it was there and it has done so much to discourage economic activity in Canada to force it south of the border. It has been partly responsible for the severe recession which Canadians are now facing.
In conclusion, I would hope that in the course of the debate on this bill in committee, we will have a chance as parliamentarians to look carefully at the fine print of this legislation, what has been negotiated with the provincial governments, what it means for the future of equalization payments and transfers, the very important responsibility which this government has to have to manage and to promote the interests of all Canadians regardless of where they live.
I hope and expect that that will occur in the next three weeks. I lament that we will not have had more time in which to do so, in which to really take seriously what is really a very fundamental piece of legislation.


Dennis Joseph Mills: Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleague from Cape Breton Highlands-Canso and I want to ask him a question about federal presence.
The Prime Minister of Canada a few months ago came out with this speech-I do not know if he was on one of his talk shows-and he was saying that Canadians have to be more patriotic. This was on the front page of all the Toronto papers and I am sure it made the front pages of most papers right across the country. Quite frankly, I agreed with the Prime Minister. I think Canadians should be more patriotic.
However, I think that with the way the way the Prime Minister is dismantling programs and handing over added responsibilities to the provinces we are working against the federal presence in our country which ultimately leads to a feeling of patriotism.
When the member talked about the fact that there is close to $30 billion in fiscal transfers equalization payments, I wondered what the member's views would be that somehow tied to those transfers, to those equalization payments, there would be some kind of a federal presence formula so that in the universities and the hospitals and wherever else funding is from the national government through those arrangements, it would somehow be reflected in some kind of a federal presence which would ultimately lead to a feeling of patriotism,
Government Orders
the very thing that the Prime Minister says we need so badly.


Mr. LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood who has demonstrated in so many creative interventions in this House and elsewhere ideas that can lead to that renewed sense of patriotism and spirit of national pride that we as Canadians can justifiably have and need to express more openly.
I think one of the problems with this government and with this Prime Minister is that they have been unwilling and timid in their expression of leadership in the face of perhaps opposition in certain parts of the country when it comes to asserting the pride of Canadians and the pride of being a Canadian and reflecting that pride in our national institutions.
There are all kinds of examples in which the government has done that. For example, as my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell mentions, the removal of Canada Post from the logo of the Canada Post Corporation is a small example. There is another example: it is Radio Canada International. Another example which has caused constituents of mine to be outraged is the fact that the National Arts Centre in its travelling tour is not going to be singing the national anthem in the province of Quebec, and the failure of the Prime Minister of Canada to take it to task for that.
Those are just small examples in which we as Canadians who want to affirm our Canadian identity and want to have that transcend our local identity need to see the leadership from our government in order to do that. The member is quite right. I believe it would be an excellent idea to put the Canadian flag up front, to put some symbol of the Canadian government's participation in programs that the Canadian government is participating in.
That was done when the Liberal government was in power. You would see signs that indicated the federal presence very clearly. It was a source of pride and it showed Canadians that their tax dollars have gone into that project.
Those gestures and those symbols are important, particularly at this crucial time.


Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, 1 just wish to draw to the attention of Canadians that the

Government Orders
Tories, after having said they would not alter the transfer formula, have done so. They cut it by 2 per cent in 1986, they cut it by 1 per cent in 1989-90, and they froze the formula in 1990-91. This bill freezes it for another two years. If one takes the total effect of the current Tory decisions on the transfer formula from 1986 to 1995, there will be almost $9 billion fewer dollars transferred to the provinces for post-secondary education.
I want to ask the member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso: What is the unemployment rate in his area and what effect will this reduced amount of money going to his province for post-secondary education have on the unemployed students? As he knows the higher the students are educated, the greater their opportunities of obtaining employment and keeping employment; the lower education of course, the less opportunity. What impact will such a bill have on the students entering post-secondary education in his province?


Francis G. LeBlanc: would like to thank my colleague for that question. In the part of Nova Scotia where I live, the unemployment rate is in the neighbourhood of 20 per cent and in some places much higher. That is the official unemployment rate. The actual unemployment rate is probably much greater.
To the precise question asked, the reduction in equalization and transfers to post-secondary education are already having an effect. They are having an effect by forcing universities in Nova Scotia to raise their tuition fees beyond those in other parts of Canada. They have tuition fees that are the highest in the country and they are making it more and more difficult for students from our area, where their parents are very often unemployed, to attend university to pursue higher education and to prepare themselves for decent well paying jobs in Nova Scotia or elsewhere in Canada.
They are having a very detrimental and immediate impact in my area.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 6.32 o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 45(6), the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-61, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 1992.


BORROWING AUTHORITY ACT, 1992-93 MEASURE TO ENACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 28, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski that Bill C-61, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year commencing April 1, 1992, be read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee E.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Call in the members.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I declare the motion carried. Consequently, the bill is referred to Legislative Committee E.
Bill read the second time and referred to Legislative Committee E.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It being 7 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.59 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, March 10, 1992